Bert McCoy's
"MyTeaching Resources"
English 9-12
  • Home
    • Manuscript #1
    • Home #2 >
      • Home #3
      • Top 10 Rules for Success >
        • Five Methods to Notetaking
        • Differentiated Instruction Depth and Complexity
        • Note To Self/ Letter to Self
        • Best book for a book club
        • Vocabulary (SAT 100)
        • SAT/ Vocabulary #2
        • Vocabulary SAT/CAHSEE/CST
        • Sat Vocabulary Words
        • Vocabulary Roots
        • Thesis Statements
        • MLA Formatting
        • Writing a Business Letter
        • Figurative Language
        • Transition Word List
        • Transition Word List
        • Transition Word List
        • Literature Terms
        • Literature Terms
        • Glossary of Literature Terms
        • Forshadowing
        • Context Clues
        • Mysteries of vernacular
        • Vocabulary Prefix
        • Science Fiction & Fantasy Stories (Tor.com)
        • Russian writers
        • Some Favorite Songs
        • Some Favorite UFO Video Clips
        • Storyboards
        • The Journey of Purpose
        • youarecreators
        • Absolute Motivation #1
        • Absolute Motivation #2
        • Business World Material
        • Peaceful Warrior Quotes
        • Goal-setting
        • Less Brown
        • Who Moved My Cheese/ #1
        • Who Moved My Cheese/ #2
        • Who Moved My Cheese/ #3
        • Secrets of Success
        • The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
        • The Four Agreements:
        • The Four Agreements
        • John Wooden's, "Pyramid of Success"
      • Teaching Stories >
        • Teaching Stories/ Quotes >
          • Spiritual Paths
        • Mooji Stories
        • "The Emperor's Three Questions" by Leo Tolstoy
        • Avadhuta Gita >
          • Avadhuta Gita
        • Teaching Stories
        • Mullah Nasruddin Stories
        • The Bhagavad Gita vs "To be or not to be." >
          • The Bhagavad-Gita
        • Vedanta Teachings >
          • Advaita / Nonduality Quotes
          • Advaita
        • The Emerald Tablets/Alchemist
        • Aesop's Fables
        • Koans
        • The Oarsman
        • The American Tourist Story
        • The Violinist
        • The Moth Presents
        • inspirational Stories
    • Cool Quotes >
      • Rumi Quotes >
        • Non-Dual Quotes
        • Present Moment Quotes
      • Inspirational Quotations 1
      • Inspirational Quotations 2
      • Cool QUOTES!
      • Motivational Quotes
      • Wisdom
    • Film Studies 2019-2020 >
      • Film Study Syllabus >
        • Film Study Terms
        • Film Vocabulary 2
      • Parasite Film
      • Best Coffee Table Books
      • Film Posters >
        • Denis Villeneuve
      • Film Studies Films >
        • Movies for Film Class
      • Film History/The Lumiere Brothers and more...
      • Film Making Quotes >
        • Lucy Film
        • First Films of Great Directors >
          • Editing (Cuts)
          • Federico Fellini
          • Jean-Luc Godard
          • Screenplay Theme
        • Hollywood Casting and Film
        • Sam Mendes 1917 Film
        • Screenwriting Sample Scrips
      • Movie Etiquette >
        • Character Types
        • Turner Classic Movies
        • Free Movies
        • Pulp Fiction Film
      • Film Agenda 2019-2020 >
        • Permission Letter
        • Filmmaking and Advice
        • Breaking Into Hollywood
        • Film Schools
        • Filmsite
      • Film Quotes >
        • The 100 greatest movie quotes of all time
      • Cinematography >
        • Film Shots
        • Camera Shots
      • Famous Film Directors >
        • Directors Favorite Films
        • John Ford
        • Jean-Luc Godard >
          • Breathless >
            • Breathless
        • François Truffaut
        • Female Film Directors
        • Akira Kurosawae
        • Andrei Tarkovsky
        • David Fincher
        • Christopher Nolan
        • Fassbinder Films
        • Coen Brothers
        • Martin Scorsese
        • Steven Speilberg
        • Quentin Tarantino
        • Directors/Producers
        • Andrei Tarkovsky
        • Stanly Kubrick >
          • Stanley Kubrick
        • The Wachowskis
      • The Seven Stages of Film Production
      • Austin Film Festival
      • Sundance Film Winners >
        • Sundance Film Festival
      • Inside The Actor's Studio
      • Television Studies
      • Screenwriting Tips
      • Narrative Design and Terms >
        • Film Study Narrative Design
        • The Hero's Journey >
          • What is an Archetype?
          • Hero's Journey
          • The Hero's Journey #1
          • Hero's Journey #2
          • Hero's Journey #3
        • Mise En Scene >
          • Mise En Scene
        • Peaky Blinders
        • Peaceful Warrior
        • Peaceful Warrior Quotes
        • Peaceful Warrior Script
        • Peaceful Warrior
        • Groundhog Day >
          • Time Loop Films
          • If today was your last day?
          • Discussion Questions Film Studies
          • Character Counts Film Studies
        • The Legend of Bagger Vance/The Gita >
          • Production Notes Legend of Bagger Vance
        • Meet Joe Black >
          • Death Takes A Holiday 1934
        • Alfred Hitchcock >
          • Alfred Hitchcock
          • Alfred Hitchcock Presnts
          • Dial M for Murder
          • Psycho >
            • Psycho 1960
            • Ed Gain Psycho
          • The Birds
          • Rear Window 1954 >
            • Disturbia
          • Vertigo >
            • Vertigo 1958
          • Rope
          • To Catch a Thief
          • Notorious 1946
          • Strangers on a Train 1951
          • North by Northwest 1959
          • To Catch a Thief/ Hitchcock
          • The 39 Steps 1935
          • The Lady Vanishes 1938
        • Marathon Man
        • Poltergeist >
          • Poltergeist
        • Jaws >
          • Jaws
        • 2001: A Space Odyssey >
          • Stanley Kubric
        • 100-Foot Journey >
          • French Laundry Restaurant
          • The Hundred Foot Journey
          • 100 Foot Journey
        • Ratatouille Quotes
        • Close Encounters of the Third Kind
        • Documentary >
          • Basquiat
          • filmumentaries
          • 200 Free Documentaries
        • 42 The Jackie Robinson Story
        • It's A Wonderful Life >
          • it's a Wonderful Life
          • It's a Wonderful Life #2
          • It's A Wonderful Life Screenplay PDF
        • I Am Legend
        • The Matrix >
          • The Matrix Reloaded
          • The Matrix The Animatrix
        • Inception
        • Avatar
        • War of the Worlds >
          • H.G. Wells
          • War of The Worlds Vocabulary
          • War of the Worlds 2
        • Forever Strong Rugby >
          • Forever Strong
          • History of Rugby
        • Hoosiers >
          • Hoosiers
        • Goal The Dream Begins
        • Aliens and Cowboys >
          • The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
        • Film Noir >
          • 12 Angry Men 1957
          • Casablanca >
            • Casablanca
            • Casablanca Review
          • Film Noir >
            • Film Noir Titles
          • Strangers on a Train/ Hitchcock >
            • Strangers on a Train/ Hitchcock
          • The Maltese Falcon
        • Charlie Chaplin >
          • Charlie Chaplin
          • New Page
        • JFK Assassination 1 >
          • Robert Yeoman
          • JFK/Oliver Stone
          • JFK Assassination 2
          • Robert Richardson and JfK
        • Miracle >
          • Flow
        • Patch Adams >
          • Patch Adams 2
        • Gattaca >
          • Eugenics
          • Gattaca
          • Gattaca filming Locations
        • Point Break
        • The Dark Knight >
          • Batman 1
          • Batman 2
        • Inception
        • Finding Forrester
        • The Ring
        • Blade Runner 2049 >
          • Blade Runner
        • Rocky >
          • Top 25 Cult Films:
          • Screenwriting software
        • Films To Consider: >
          • Breathless, by Jean-Luc Godard (1960)
          • Interstellar
          • What Dreams May Come
          • Powder
          • Forrest Gump
          • Mr. Holland's Opus >
            • Vimeo Short Films
            • Sketchbooks for Class
          • The Shining
          • Breakfast at Tiffiffany's
          • Indiana Jones
          • Rain Man
          • French Kiss
          • Silence of the Lambs
          • The Hunger Games/Quotes >
            • Suzanne Collins
            • The Hunger Games
            • The Hunger Games
            • The Hunger Games Seneca
            • The Hunger Games/ Questions
            • Catching Fire
            • The Hunger Games
            • The Hunger Games/ Chapters
            • The Hunger Games/ Characters, Facts, Themes,
          • The Last Samurai
          • In the Mood for Love
          • Seabiscuit
          • Malcolm X
          • 3 Days of the Condor 1975
          • Das Boot
          • Crimson Tide
          • U-571
          • The Hunt For Red October
          • Mr. & Mrs. Smith
          • Promised Land
          • Wonder Woman 2017
          • Planet of the Apes Films
          • The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
          • A Fist Full of Dollars
          • The Conformist >
            • The Conformist
          • Peter Sellers
          • Gladiator
          • The Last Emperor 1987/ Bertolucci
          • Phenomenon 1996
          • Back to the Future
          • The Butler
          • Contagion 2011
          • Speed Racer
          • The Rainmaker
          • Remember the Titans
          • In the Mood for Love
          • 1984 George Orwell
          • Lord of the Rings Films
        • Citizen Kane >
          • Citizen Kane #2
        • The Perks of Being a Wallflower
        • They're Here!
        • The Wild Wild West! >
          • John Wayne / True Grit
          • Clint Eastwood/ High Plains Drifter
        • The Pride of the Yankees 1943
      • German Expressionism in Film >
        • Fritz Lang
        • Dadaist Films
      • Film as Social and Cultural History
      • Filmmaker IQ
      • National Archive Films
      • Atlas Shrugged /Ayn Rand
      • 2016-17 Film Play List
      • Scary Movies >
        • Horror
        • Flowers in the Attic/ Parental Responsibilities
        • Ghost of the Lagoon by Armstrong Sperry
        • Frankenstein 1910 Silent Movie
        • Free Movies
        • My Favorite Directors...Best Directors >
          • My Favorite Actors
      • Dreamworks
      • How to find the theme (s)
      • Man vs Nature Films
      • Film Studies
      • Film Set Lingo
      • Film Studies Lectures
      • Sound Design
      • Film Sound
      • Film Editing
      • Film Lighting Terms and Techniques >
        • Film Lighting
      • Acting Techniques
      • James Bond
      • Film Studies/ Film as Literature (FAL) >
        • filmsite.org
        • Classics Movies #1 >
          • Classic Movies #2
        • Buster Keaton
        • Buster keaton vs Charlie Chaplin
        • Sidney Portier Movies
      • Film Techniques and Terminology
      • Zorba the Greek
      • The Hollywood Reporter
      • Education Movies
      • WAR!
      • Braveheart
      • Glory Road
      • Historical and Period Drama Movies
      • Marlon Brando/On The Water-front
      • Mutiny on the Bounty
      • Stages and Archetypes of the Hero's Journey
      • October Sky
      • Spy Movies
      • Stephen Fry
      • Paper Towns
      • From Weak to Strong Movies
      • The Secret Life of Bees
      • Environmental Movies
      • Sports Movies >
        • A River That Runs Through It >
          • Fly Fishing Quotes
        • Money Ball >
          • Money Ball #2
        • Dogville
        • Goal / History of soccer >
          • Goal (page two)
        • Teamwork Movies
        • www.ronaldothefilm.com
        • We Are Marshall
        • Pele
        • Remember the Titans
      • Lance Armstrong Doping
      • FAL/ ?
      • Madame Bovary
  • Bert McCoy Quotes 1
  • A LiL' Bert Can't Hurt b
  • A Lil' Bert Can't Hurt
  • Bert McCoy quotes 2
  • Bert McCoy Quotes 3
  • Bert McCoy Quotes 4
  • Bert McCoy Quotes 5
  • Bert McCoy Quotes
  • Bert McCoy Quote Categories
    • Bert McCoy Self Realization Quotes
    • Bert McCoy Meditation Quotes
    • Best Wisdom Books
    • Bert McCoy Enlightenment Quotes
    • Bert McCoy Sunset Quotes
    • Bert McCoy Present Moment Quotes
    • Bert McCoy Wisdom Quotes
  • Siddhartha
    • Siddhartha Vocabulary Words
  • English 9 Curriculum Map 2018-19
    • English 9 Unit 1 >
      • Video Games >
        • Video Gaming
        • Video Games #2
        • Game Programmer
        • Video Game Jobs
        • Video Games/Presi/Slideshare
      • Video Games
      • Story Telling /Moth
      • 10 Rules/Carmichael
    • The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian >
      • The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian Vocabulary Words
    • Direct and Indirect Characterization
    • Overly Sarcastic Productions The Classics
    • English 9 Unit 2 >
      • Food >
        • BBC Fast Food Baby
        • BBC The Truth About Food
        • BBC Beef Burgers
        • GMOs
        • Food
        • Food
        • Food
      • Richard Wright/Blackboy >
        • Black Boy by Richard Wright
      • The Age of the Essay Paul Graham
    • English 9 Unit 3 >
      • Siddhartha >
        • Siddhartha
        • The Odyssey Vocabulary Words >
          • The Odyssey Movie
          • Create a Myth Assignment
          • Odyssey Timelines/ AWESOME!
          • Odyssey Audio
          • The Odyssey/60 Second Recap
          • Freewill vs Determinism quotes
          • Freewill vs Determinism
          • Greek Gods
          • Greek Vases
          • Ancient Greeks
          • Greek Gods
          • The Greeks/Gods
          • Greek Gods/Godesses
          • Greek Gods and their Characteristics
          • Greek Gods/Videos
          • Odyssey
          • The Odyssey and the Hero's Journey
          • The Odyssey Presentations
      • Greek and Roman >
        • Untitled
        • What is theater?
        • Ancient Rome
        • The Gladiator Graveyard
        • Spartacus Behing the Myth
        • Helen of Troy
        • Worst Jobs Roman/Anglo-Saxon
        • Ancient Greek/Roman Music
        • Ancient Greek Homes
        • Rome/History/BBC >
          • Marcus Aurelius
          • The Stoics
          • Metal Detecting Roman/Greek
        • Oedipus The King >
          • Oedipus the King/Prezi
        • Homer, The Iliad
        • The Norse Gods
    • English 9 Unit 4 >
      • Graffiti >
        • Bansky
        • Bansky Art Sold fo
        • Street Art
        • The Top Street and Graffiti Artists to Watch in 2015
        • Graffiti Analysis
        • Anamorphic Graffiti Illusions by Odeith – Fubiz
    • Romeo and Juliet
    • English 9 Unit 5/ Poetry >
      • Various Poets
    • English 9 Other >
      • English 9 Essay
  • English 12 2017-18
    • Restorative Justice >
      • Juvenile Justice Essay Resources
      • Adam Foss
      • Racial Profiling >
        • Racial Poetry
        • Racial Profiling
      • Racism
      • Bullying #1
      • Race/Racism/Bullying
      • Jim Crow Museum
      • What Would You Do?
      • Bullying
      • Bullying
    • Eng 12/ Life after high school >
      • Personal Statement
      • Vision Board Assignment >
        • Vision Board Project
      • UC Writing Prompts/Journals
      • Hidden Intellectualism by Gerald Graff
      • Job Applications/Business Letter
      • Interview Questions and Answers >
        • Interview Q & A
        • Interview Q & A
      • Job Seeking/Resume/Q and A
      • FAFSA
      • Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse
    • Unit 2 Week (3-5) "College Application Essay" >
      • Commencement Speeches #1
      • Commencement Speeches #2
      • Great Speeches
    • Zoot Suit >
      • Zoot Suit 2
    • 1984 Language, Gendetr, and Culture in George Orwell's 1984 >
      • 1984 Key facts, characters, themes, motifs, and symbolism
    • Brave New World 2016 >
      • Brave New World 2017 1
      • Gender, Language, and Identity
      • Brave New World Character Name meanings
      • BNW Vocabulary
      • BNW Chomsky
      • Brave New World Vocabulary Words
      • Brave New World 2016 2
      • The Perennial Philosophy/Huxly
      • Mystic Quotes
      • Papaji Advaita Vedanta
      • Nissargadatta
      • Vedanta Advaita Quotes
      • Kristnamurti Quotes
      • Sola BNW
      • Iron Maiden/ BNW
    • Into The Wild 2016-17
    • Into the Wild/ 11/15 >
      • Into the Wild/ Characters >
        • Into The Wild/Characters >
          • Into the Wild/Themes, Characters
      • Into the Wild/ Vocab
      • Into the Wild/ Quotes
      • into The Wild/ Chapter Reviews
      • Into The Wild/ Symbolism
      • Into To Wild/ Themes
      • Into The Wild/ Glossary
      • Into the Wild/ Quiz 1
      • Into the Wild/Jon Krakauer >
        • Is Ignorance Bliss?
        • Into the Wild/ Essential questions
        • Into the Wild/20/20 >
          • Into the Wild/Eckhart Tolle
        • Chris McCandless Articles/Outside Magazine
        • Into the Wild/Jon Krakaur
        • Into the Wild/2015/Nomads
        • Into the Wild
        • Into the Wild/The Big Two-hearted River/Nick Adams
        • Into the Wild/Who Am I
        • Into the Wild/Pierre Bezuhov/From War and Peace
        • Into The Wild/Various
        • Into the Wild/2015/Rush
        • Into the Wild/Tolstoy
        • Into the Wild/Springsteen
        • Into the Wild/Jack London
        • Into the Wild/Emerson
        • To Build a Fire/Jack Londen
        • Into the Wild/Louis L' Amour
        • Into the Wild/Thoreau
        • Into the Wild/Boris Pasternak
        • Into the Outdoors
        • Into the Wild/Alaska Denali
        • Into the Wild/Snowboarding
        • Into the Wild/2014/15/Supertramp
        • Into the Wild/Vocabulary
        • Into The Wild/Themes >
          • Into the Wild/Themes
        • Into The Wild/Glossary
        • Into the Wild/ Papaji
        • Into the Wild/Eckhart Tolle
        • Into the Wild
        • Into the Wild (Prezi)
        • Into the Wild/John Muir
        • Into the Wild/Quiz
        • Into the Wild /Movie Questions
        • Into the Wild/ Q&A
        • Into the Wild/ Climbing Videos
        • Into the Wild/Moose
    • Standards
    • English 12 Syllabus
    • English 12 2016-17 >
      • English 12a Final Essay
      • Letter To Myself >
        • Letter to Myself
        • Letter to Myself
    • English 12 Essay 2015
    • History of the English Church >
      • History of English
      • History of English
      • The History of English >
        • BBC Anglo-Saxons >
          • Anglo Saxons >
            • Anglo Saxon Lyre
            • Anglo-Saxon The History of English
            • Worst Jobs in History (Middle Ages)
            • The Worst Jobs in History--The Dark Age - Part 1-6
            • The Worst Jobs In History - 1x03 - Tudor
            • The Worst Jobs In History--Roman & Anglo-Saxon
            • The Worst Jobs In History--Medieval
            • The Worst Jobs In History--Tudor
            • The Worst Jobs In History--Stuart
            • The Worst Jobs In History--Georgian
            • The Worst Jobs In History--Victorian
            • The Worst Jobs In History--Urban
            • The Worst Jobs In History--Royal
            • The Worst Jobs In History-- Industrial
            • The Worst Jobs In History--Maritime
            • The Worst Jobs In History--Rural
            • The Worst Jobs In History--Christmas
            • The Medievil Mind >
              • The Medieval Belief
              • The Medievil Treasures BBC
              • The Medieval Power
              • Age of Conquest
              • The Crusades
              • The Black Plague
              • AEngla Land
              • Treasures of the Anglo-Saxons
              • The Staffordshire Hoard
            • Beowulf >
              • In Search of Beowulf
              • Beowulf PPt Presentations
              • British Literature Learning Videos >
                • Paganism vs Christianity
                • The Germanic Tribes
                • Beowulf & the Anglo-Saxons (1-8)
            • The Canterbury Tales
        • Language
    • English 12 Reading >
      • Epic of Gilgamesh Audio 2000 BC.
      • Sir Gawain and the Green Knight Late 14th-century
      • The Wife of Bath's Tale 1405-1410 from canterbury Tales
      • The Passionate Shepard
      • Shakespeare 1564-1616 >
        • Shakespeare/ Tudor England
        • Novels/Plays >
          • Hamlet's, "To Be or Not to Be"
          • A Midsummer Night's Dream
          • Macbeth
          • Macbeth
          • Macbeth Act by Act
          • Shakespeare Poems
          • Globe Theater
          • Shakespeare Sonnets
          • Sonnet 1
          • Sonnet 1 Blog:
          • Sonnet 18
          • Sonnet 29
          • Sonnet 29 Blog:
          • Sonnet 75
          • Sonnet 75 Blog
          • Sonnet 130
      • Romeo & Juliet/ Shakespeare 4/15 >
        • Romeo & Juliet/ Shmoop Resources
        • Shakespeare Glossary
        • Shakespeare's Globe
        • Quotes about Shakespeare >
          • Shakespeare Quotes
          • Shakespeare Castles
        • Romeo & Juliet/ Characters
        • Romeo & Juliet/ Themes, Motifs, Symbolism
        • Elizabethan Clothing
        • Royal Shakespeare Company
        • Romeo and Juliet 1
        • Romeo and Juliet 2
        • Romeo and Juliet 3
        • Romeo and Juliet/ 60 Second
    • Six Centuries of Verse: Metaphysical & Devotional Poets >
      • Ben Johnson
      • John Donne
      • Andrew Marvell >
        • Jonathan Swift
        • A Modest Proposal
      • To His Coy Mistress
    • Romanticism 1790-1850 >
      • Romantic Spirit
      • Mysticism
      • William Blake
      • William Wordsworth
      • Samuel Taylor Coleridge
      • John Keats
      • Percy Bysshe Shelley
      • Mary Shelley
      • Lord Byron
      • James Joyce
  • My Favorite People
    • Favorite Artists >
      • Brian Dettmer Book Cutting
      • Bansky
      • Julian Schnabel
      • Phillip Guston
      • David Salle
      • Robert Motherwell
      • Picaso
      • Raushenburg
      • Francisco Clemente
      • Joseph Beuys
      • Cy Twombly
      • Jean Michel Basquiat
      • Keith Haring
      • Kenny Scharf
      • Kaws
      • Sun Xun
      • L' Arte
      • Richard Serra
    • AESOP
    • Adyashanti
    • Maya Angelou
    • Jane Austin
    • James Baldwin
    • Bansky Quotes
    • Coleman Barks
    • Joseph Beuys
    • Harold Bloom >
      • Harol Bloom/ How to read and why
    • Jorge Luis Borges
    • Robert Bly 1 >
      • Robert Bly 2
    • David Bowie
    • Ray Bradberry >
      • There Will Come Soft Rains
      • Usher II
      • The Veldt
      • Marionettes Inc.
      • Fehrenheit 451
      • Fahrenheit 451 Vocabulary
      • Fahrenheit 451 Quotes
    • Russell Brand >
      • Russell Brand
    • David Brooks
    • Barbara Brodsky
    • James Brown
    • Buddha >
      • Buddha
    • Warren Buffet
    • James Cameron
    • Albert Camus
    • Jack Canfield
    • George Carlin
    • Lewis Carrol
    • Caroline Casey
    • Paulo Coelho/Alchemist >
      • The Alchemist by
      • Paulo Coelho
    • John Coltrane >
      • John Coltrane
    • Steven Covey >
      • Steven Covey
      • The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People/Steven Covey
    • Charlie Chaplin
    • Noam Chomsky
    • Deepak Chopra >
      • Ask Deepak
      • Deepak Chopra
    • Winston Churchill
    • Mihaly Csikszentmihaly
    • Ram Dass
    • Simone De Beauvoir
    • Anthony De Mello
    • Daniel Dennett
    • Shanti Devi
    • Junot Diaz
    • WALT DISNEY QUOTES
    • Fyodor Dostoyevsky >
      • Fyodor Dostoyevsky/ The Brothers Karamazov
    • Carol Dweck/Mindsets
    • Bob Dylan >
      • Bob Dylan
    • Thomas Edison Quiz
    • Albert Einstein >
      • Albert Einstein
    • T. S. Eliot
    • Ralph Waldo Emerson
    • Jane Eyre
    • Anneliese Marie Frank
    • William Faulkner
    • F Scott Fitsgerald >
      • The Roaring 20's
      • F Scott Fitzgerald 2014-15
      • The Great Gatsby
    • Benjamin Franklin
    • Robert Frost
    • Stephen Fry >
      • Stephen Fry
    • Neil Gaiman
    • Dan Gilbert
    • Malcom Gladwell
    • Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
    • Gurdjieff
    • Steven Hawking /black Holes
    • Hafez/Hafiz #1 >
      • Hafez/Hafiz Poems #2
      • Hafez/Hafiz #3
      • Hafez/Hafiz #4
      • Hafez #5 >
        • Hafiz Poems #7
      • Hafez Poems #6
      • Hafez Poems #8
    • Thich Nhat Hanh
    • Tyrone Hayes
    • Ernest Hemingway
    • Hermann Hesse >
      • Siddhartha Quotes
    • Christopher Hitchens
    • HOU HSIAO-HSIEN
    • Langston Hughes >
      • Langston Hughes/ Poems
      • Langston Hughes
    • Aldous Huxley >
      • Brave New World 4/15 >
        • Secret Societies >
          • The Knights Templar
          • The Freemasons
          • The Rosicrucians
          • The Illuminati
          • The Carbonari
        • BNW/ Chemtrails vs Contrails
        • BNW/ Unit Plan
        • BNW/ 2015
        • BNW/ TED
        • BNW/ William Blake/Doors of Perception
        • BNW/ Details #1
        • BNW/ Details #2
        • BNW/ Soma= DMT?
        • BNW/ Futuristic Movie Trailers
        • BNW/ Dystopia vs Utopia
        • BNW vs 1984
        • BNW/ Orwell vs Huxley
        • BNW/ Noam Chomsky
        • BNW/ Huxley Complete Works
        • BNW/ Vedanta and Huxley
        • BNW/ Advaita Vedanta
        • BNW/ Bohemian Grove
        • BNW/ Corporate Deceit
        • BNW/ Shakespeare and Religion by Huxley
        • BNW/ Geo-Engineering
        • BNW/ About Aldous Huxley
        • BNW/ Doors
        • BNW/ Conspiracy?
        • BNW/1984 Synthetic Telepathy
        • BNW/ May 13th
        • BNW/ Transhumanism
        • BNW/ What is DMT? Soma?
        • BNW/ Psychological Warfare
        • BNW/ NWO
      • Brave New World 2014 >
        • Brave New World 2014 >
          • Brave New World #5 2014
          • Oligarcy
          • Transhumanism
          • Agenda 21
          • Inequality For All
          • Inequality For All
          • Brainwash Update
          • Globalization
        • Brave New World Quotes
        • Brave New World >
          • Brave New World #2
          • Brave New World #3
          • Brave New World #4
          • enotes/Brave New World
          • Brave New World Vocabulary Words
          • Aldous Huxley
          • Bio-Engineering
          • CHEM-TRAILS
          • Genetic Engineering
          • Aldous Huxley
          • Aldous Huxley - Videos
      • Brave New World 1/2015
    • Pir Zia Inayat-Khan/Sufi
    • Phil Jackson
    • Eta James
    • James Joyce
    • Mahatma Ghandhi
    • John Irving
    • Carl Gustav Jung/Interview >
      • C. G. Jung/Quotes
    • Jon Kabat-Zinn
    • Kabir
    • Franz Kafka >
      • Franz Kafka
    • Immanuel Kant
    • Byron Katie
    • Nikos Kazantzakis
    • John Keats
    • John F. Kennedy
    • Kibir
    • Stephen King
    • Alfie kohn
    • Matt Kohn >
      • Pleiadian Broadcast ???
    • Jeff Koons
    • Jiddu Krishnamurti
    • Rama Krishna
    • Stanley Kubrick >
      • Stanley Kubrick
    • Llewellyn Vaughan Lee
    • Best of David Letterman
    • C S Lewis
    • Jack London
    • David Lynch
    • Anandamayi Ma
    • Ramana Maharshi
    • Nelson Mandela
    • Og Mandino/Greatest Salesman >
      • Og Mandino/Summary
    • Karl Marx >
      • Karl Marx
    • John Mayer
    • Connor McGregor
    • Herman Melville
    • Lionel Messi
    • Dan Millman >
      • Peaceful Warrior
    • Hsin Hsin Ming The Book of Nothing
    • Mooji #1 >
      • Mooji/Avadhuta Gita #2
      • Mooji / Video & Sayings #3
      • Mooji #4
      • Mooji #5
    • Bill Moyer
    • Henry Miller
    • Thelonious Monk
    • Van Morrison
    • Elon Musk >
      • Elon Musk
    • Caroline Myss
    • Nietzsche >
      • Nietzsche
    • Anais Nin
    • Nissargadatta >
      • Nissargadatta I Am That
      • Nisargadatta Maharaj
    • John Oliver
    • John O'Donohue
    • Suze Orman
    • George Orwell >
      • 1984
      • 1984 >
        • george orwell biography
        • 1984 #1
    • Osho
    • Papaji
    • Pablo Picasso
    • Plato
    • Edgar Allen Poe
    • William Sydney Porter
    • Premananda
    • Marcel Proust
    • Anthony Robbins >
      • Tony Robbins
    • Robert Reich
    • Sen no Rikyu/Zen
    • Jim Rohn
    • Teddy Roosevelt quotes >
      • Victorian Period (1833-1901) >
        • Victorian Era
        • Robert Browning
        • Charles Dickens
        • Edgar Allen Poe
        • Alfred Lord Tennyson
    • Don Miguel Ruiz/The 4 Agreements
    • Rumi >
      • Rumi/Dr. Omid Safi
      • Rumi/Coleman Barks #1
      • Rumi/Coleman Barks #2
      • Rumi/Coleman Barks #3
      • Rumi/Coleman Barks #4
    • Bertrand Russell
    • Sadhguru #1 >
      • Sadhguru #2
      • Sounds of Isha #3
      • Sounds of Isha
      • Isha
    • Stefan Sagmeister
    • Joel Salatin
    • Samarpan
    • Michael Sandel
    • Dr. Seus
    • Shakespeare
    • Anoushka Shankar
    • Percy Bysshe Shelley >
      • Mary Shelly
    • Nickolas Sparks
    • Bruce Springsteen
    • Ralph Steadman
    • David Steindl-Rast
    • Robert Louis Stevenson >
      • Rober Louis Stevenson 2
      • Robert Louis Stevenson 3 >
        • Robert Louis Stevenson Poems
        • Jekyll/2007
        • Dr> Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Audio $$ >
          • Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Videos)
          • Key Facts
        • Treasure Island/RLS
    • Teal Swan
    • Rabindrath Tagore
    • Henry David Thoreau
    • Nikola Tesla
    • Eckhart Tolle
    • Leo Tolstoy
    • Brian Tracy
    • Mark Twain
    • Irina Tweedie
    • Lao Tzu/Tao/The Way
    • Ludwig van Beethoven
    • Swami Vivekananda
    • Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee
    • Kurt Vonnegut
    • David Foster Wallace >
      • David Foster Wallace
    • Neale Donald Walsch
    • George Washington
    • Holocaust/Night/Elie Weisel >
      • Night/Elie Weisel #2 >
        • Elie Weisel Pictures
    • Orson Welles
    • Oscar Wilde
    • Walt Whitman
    • Marianne Williamson >
      • Marianne Williamson
      • Marianne Williamson
    • Ed Witten
    • John Wooden
    • William Wordsworth
    • W B Yeats
    • Zig Ziglar
    • Zizek
  • English 9
    • Week 1-4/ Uncovering the Self >
      • Uncovering the Self
    • Grade 9/Unit 1/ Writing Task
    • Grade 9/Unit 2
    • Grade 9/Unit 3
    • English 9/Unit 4
    • English 9 TEDs
    • English 3D
    • English 3D
    • Read 180/Intensive 2
  • TED
    • TED Talks >
      • Videos #34 >
        • Videos #35
        • Videos #36
        • Videos #37
        • Videos #38
      • ted talks
      • TED #2
      • TED #3
      • TED X
      • TedxWomen
    • Ted Ed >
      • TED.Ed #1
      • Ted Ed #2
      • Ted Ed #3
      • Ted Ed #4
      • Ted Ed #5
      • Ted Ed #6
      • TED Ed #8
  • Poetry
    • Haiku >
      • Haiku
    • Quotes on Poetry >
      • Poets on Poetry
    • TED Poetry >
      • Rives Poetry >
        • Beats
    • Poetry Images
    • Button Poetry
    • Our Life In Poetry
    • Poetry "Random"
    • Fredrico Lorca
  • Music
    • John lennon
    • Rolling Stones
    • Light in Babylon
    • Resham Firiri/ Nepal
    • Guitar
    • Estas Tonne
    • Andres Segovia/ Guitar
    • Anna RF
    • Gipsy Kings
    • Hindi Songs
    • Music #2
    • JAZZ/ Louis Armstrong
    • Blues
    • The Beatles
    • om
    • Jack Johnson
    • Jazz
    • NPR Music
    • Krishna Das
  • Philosophy
    • Economics >
      • Economic Philosophy
    • Existentialism Quotes >
      • Hegel
    • The School of Life
  • Untitled
  • Letters of Note Website
  • Awakening
  • Mantras
  • Google
  • Last Minute Substitute Ideas
  • linguistics
  • Short Stories
    • The Emperor's Three Questions
    • Short Stories
    • Sonata for Harp and Bicycle by Joan Aiken
    • Carry Your Own Skis by Lian Dolan >
      • Snowboard Playlist/mix
    • The Gift of the Magi/O. Henry
    • The Necklace/Maupassant
    • The Most Dangerous Game/Connell
  • Novels
    • Catcher in the Rye
    • I know Why the Caged Bird Sings
    • Lord of the Flies
    • Of Mice and Men
    • A Single Shard
    • Stargirl/ >
      • Jerry Spinelli
      • Stargirl/ Characters
  • Comedy
  • Google Project Street Art
  • HAARP
  • People Are Awesome
  • Health Care
  • Fracking
  • Girls in Sports/Gender Equality
  • Untitled
  • Music/Sufi
    • History of the Blues
    • Sufi Music
  • Literature Analysis
  • Avadhuta Gita .pdf
  • Rumi/Deepak Chopra
  • Present Moment/The Now/The Zone
  • English Language Explained/Maps
  • How to trademark a phrase!
  • Narration and Literature
  • Mahatria
  • Teaching Stories
  • Harlem Renaissance Music/and some Sara Vaughan
    • Harlem Renaissance Doc
  • Oasis of the Seas
  • Ap History Exam Prep
  • Advertising Techniques
  • Academic Literary Terms
  • Untitled
    • Untitled
  • Happiness 1
    • Happiness 2
    • How to get Happy!
    • Philosophy, A guide to Happiness
    • Toxic People
    • A Guide to Happiness (Philosophy)
    • The Power of Time Off
  • Pierre Bezuhov/From War and Peace
  • Writing
    • 25 Phrases That Are Said Wrong
    • Writing Advice/ Roberto Bolano >
      • George Orwell/ Why I Write
    • Grammar >
      • Pronouns Overused
      • Nouns
      • Punctuation
    • Writing/Journaling >
      • Journaling/Goalsetting >
        • Journaling
        • 180 Journaling Prompts
        • 100 Benefits of Journaling
        • Colgate's Living Writers
      • Cool Stuff to Journal About >
        • Big Think >
          • Big Thinks
        • Sanskrit Terms
        • Spirit Animals/Totems >
          • Power Animals
        • Hip-Hop
        • Met-Publications
        • Google "Art Project"
        • Old Guys Telling Jokes
        • Vimeo
        • UFO >
          • DARPA
          • Area 51
        • Videos 1-10 >
          • Videos #1
          • Videos #2
          • Videos #3
          • Videos #4
          • Videos #5
          • Videos #6
          • Videos #7
          • Videos #8
          • Videos #9
          • Videos #10 >
            • Videos 11-20 >
              • Videos #11
              • Videos #12
              • Videos #14
              • Videos #15
              • Videos #16
              • Videos #17
              • Videos #18
              • Videos #19
              • Videos #20
            • Videos #21-30 >
              • Videos #21
              • Videos #22
              • Videos #23
              • Videos #24
              • Videos #25
              • Videos #26
              • Videos #27
              • Videos #28
              • Videos #29
              • Videos #30
              • Videos 31-40 >
                • Videos #31
                • Videos #32
                • Videos #33
      • MIT Writing/Reading Class Syllabus
      • The Art of War
    • Writing
    • Literacy
    • Arguementative Essay Writing
    • Writing Tips
    • Some writers on writing >
      • Ayn Rand
    • Best Essays Ever!
    • How To Write
    • Writing Advice
    • "Quick Writes"
    • Expository Writing
    • CAHSEE Essay
    • Collection of "How to write" videos
    • Common Errors in Writing
    • Grammar #1 >
      • Grammar
      • Adverbial Clause
    • Composition Forum
    • Symbolism
    • Final Essay Resources
  • Environmental/Health Designs/Concerns
    • Environment
    • Health Care
    • Sugar/Poison
    • Digital Citizenship Cyberbullying 6/15 >
      • Risky Relationships On-line
      • Digital Footprint
    • Environment >
      • Water
      • Plastic Water Bottles 1
      • Plastic Water Bottles 2
      • Fluoridation
      • Fluoride
      • Cell Phones Cause Cancer
      • Oil/Tar Sands
      • Treehugger.com
      • hand sanitizer
      • Skin Lotions
    • RSA Videos
    • crashcourse! >
      • crashcourse 2!
    • Environmental
    • Design in a Nutshell >
      • Design
      • Designers
      • Open-University Bike Design
    • Beauty Industry Modeling
    • Minute Physics >
      • Minute Physics 2
    • How it's Made
    • Make:
    • Etsy Art and Culture
    • PBS Off/Soft Book
    • Iron-on Transfers
  • Cool Stuff to Write About!
    • Writers on Writing
    • Writer's Block...HaHa
    • Soccer >
      • Soccer
    • Amazing
    • Medicine/Doc Mike Evans
    • Mysteries & Scandals
    • Sex Education >
      • Teen Pregnancy
    • Tax The Rich?
    • The Creators Project >
      • The Creators Project
    • Harvard Thinks Big
    • Coffee
    • Art Misc >
      • MTV unplugged
    • Pulp Magazine Project
    • Thinker
    • Gun Control
    • Suicide
    • Citizen Hearing on Disclosure 2013
    • Witness Testimony
    • Ufo
    • Archaeology
    • The Truth About...
    • Helping Others
    • New Yorker Cartoons
    • Prostetics
    • Astronaut
    • Creators Project
    • Wearable Project
    • Minecraft
    • Archives/Various
    • Upworthy
    • Reincarnation
    • Undocumented
  • Character/ How to build it!
    • Red Frost/ Motivation
    • Confidence
    • Responsibility
    • Decision Making
  • Untitled
  • bio.com
  • The Science of Happiness
  • Gnostic Society Library
  • Sign Language Hip Hop
  • Summer Reading 2015
    • Nothing to Envy by Barbara Demick
  • Summer School 2015
    • Is Google making us stupid?
    • Does Technology Make Us Smarter?
  • News Reporting/Reading Same Script
  • English 12a
    • Unit 1 Week (1 & 2) "Summer Reading Assignment: Unbroken by Laura Hillenbrand" >
      • Unbroken Characters
      • Unbroken/ Prezi
    • Unit 3 Week (6-10) "Value of Life"
    • Unit 4 Week (9-12) "Racial Profiling"
  • Understanding Stress
  • Untitled
  • Drums and Drummers
  • Boy Scouts
    • Boy Scout Merit Badge Info
    • Climbing Knots/Boy Scouts
  • Unbroken
    • Unbroken Vocabulary
    • Unbroken Characters
    • Unbroken Discussion Questions
    • louie Zamperini and the 1936 Olympics
    • Louie Zamperini goes to War
    • Hiroshima
    • Unbroken - Louis Zamperini Story - ZAMP and HIS SUPER MAN B-24
    • Unbroken - Louis Zamperini Story - B-24s IN COMBAT
    • How Accurate is the movie Unbroken?
    • Unbroken - Louis Zamperini Story - SUPER MAN ATTACKS - FUNAFUTI and NAURU
    • Unbroken - Louis Zamperini Story - A GREEN HORNET and GREY SHARKS
    • Unbroken - Louis Zamperini Story - PRISON CAMPS - OFUNA and OMORI
    • Unbroken - Louis Zamperini Story - NAOETSU and CAMP B-4
    • Unbroken - Louis Zamperini Story - THE BIRD - THEN AND LATER
    • Unbroken - Louis Zamperini Story - WHEN LOUIE MET BILLY
    • Unbroken - Louis Zamperini Story - FORGIVENESS
    • Unbroken vs History
    • USA/Japan POWs
    • Norden Bombsight
    • B-24 Bomber
    • Can We Drink Salt Water?
    • Unbroken - Louis Zamperini Story - KWAJALEIN - EXECUTION ISLAND
  • Romeo & Juliet/ Classical Music/Deep Purple, Etc,..
  • How to be Happy!
  • Thoughts
  • J.K. Rowlings
  • James Patterson/ Writing
  • Business Planning
  • Personal Statement
    • www.essayhell.com
    • Show not Tell in Writing
    • Map Out The College App Essay
  • The Value of Life
    • John Paul Sartre/ bad faith
    • Addicted to Suffering/ Red Ribbon 2015
    • Actuarial Table
    • Value of Life Quotes
    • Ric Elias
    • Matt Whoolery/ How to be Unhappy
    • Jill Bolte Taylor
    • What Makes a Life Worth Living?
    • "What is a Life Worth?" AmandaRipley
  • Top Business Movie Speeches
  • Overcoming Hopelessness
  • Upcoming Movies to Watch!!
  • Finding Your Life Purpose
  • 20 Free Tools for Entrepreneurs
  • www.recitethis.com
  • Best Websitesfor Teaching 201 5
  • Best Websites for Teaching 2014
  • Best Websites for Teaching 2013
  • Test of Three
  • What I Wish I Knew In High School
  • Best Practices
  • Value of Life 11/15
  • 8 Iconic Movie Rules To Live By
  • Kathryn Schulz/ On Being Wrong
  • Dealing With Anger
  • Learning The Stock Market
  • What To Do in Your Life
  • TED Talks
  • Poetry of Perception/ Harvard
  • New Page
  • funniest jokes
  • Opinion Paper Basics
  • Found Poems for, Into The Wild
  • willpower
  • schoolofthought.org
  • Marc & Angel
  • Restorative Justice
  • Coloring Books
  • Verbal Workout/Vocab from books
  • http://www.ethosconsultancynz.com/
  • Pindex
  • Understanding Assignments
  • Commencement Speeches
  • Writing Prompts
  • Personal Statement
  • English 12 Writing Prompts
  • Block Letter Format
  • PIQ
  • El Toro High School Class of 1979
  • SNL
  • Blackout Poems
  • Nerdwriter1
  • Internet Movie Script Database
  • Unit 5
  • Product Placement in Films
  • Tablets of Destiny
  • Public Service Videos
  • Instramental Beats For Poetry
  • Sexual Innuendos
  • Animal Totems
  • English 9 Ted Talks
  • Animal Farm
  • John F. Kennedy 3
  • How to be Happy?
  • The Boiling Frog Story
  • Lord Of The Flies
  • 2017 Summer Reading
  • Fashion History
  • Ayahuasca
  • Russian Dystopian Novel "We" George Orwell/Aldous Huxley
  • Smart Websites
    • 99U.com
  • Before I Fall
  • Quotes on Manners
  • Eng 12/ Good Food Bad Food
  • Summer Reading 2017
  • New Page
  • Live and Learn by Louise Menand
  • How to write an essay?
    • Vanderbilt Writing Resources
  • Ishmael Nazario
  • False Flags False attacks
  • Millikan Soccer Team
    • Possession Soccer
  • White Sounds for feeling Good
  • Food Unit English 12b
  • 1984 (New 2018)
    • 1984 Vocabulary Words
  • Are we living in the Matrix?
  • Stand-up Poetry
  • Sativacation
  • McCoy Family History
  • The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie
  • Concept Attainment
  • Get Rid of PTSD with a Stellate Ganglion Block
  • 9/11
  • Chef Jeremiah Tower
  • Correy Goode
  • How to get out of jury duty
  • Rupi Kaur Poet
  • Greek Stuff to journal about
  • Romeo and Juliet
  • Should You Use "I"?
  • The Odyssey Explained
  • Field of Dreams
  • Advice to your younger self
  • The Boiling Frog Story
  • GATE Students
  • 30 Things You Can Do To Promote Creativity
  • GATE Students in the Visual arts
  • Meditation
  • Boy Scout Eagle Project Information
  • Hunter S Thompson
  • Character Development
  • How to spot a liar
  • The History of Drunk
  • How to Draw Like an architect
  • Cool Interviews
  • Ouija Board Origins
    • Ouija Board Origins
  • Free Writing Courses
  • The Vatican
  • Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1978
  • Artist Videos
  • Art
  • Ai Weiwei
  • Manuscript Copy #2 7/10/24
  • Bert McCoy positive Quotes
  • A Lil Bert Can't Hurt
  • Bert McCoy Quote Books
  • Buy Bert McCoy Books
  • Bert McCoy Author
  • Bert McCoy Books
  • Manuscript Copy 7/8/24
  • Bert mccoy Book info

English 12 Unit 1 Writing Prompt

​https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/06/06/live-and-learn-louis-menand
Explain Menand's  argument and discuss the extent to which you agree of disagree with his analysis? Support your position, providing reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, observations, or reading.
I could have said, “You are reading these books because you’re in college, and these are the kinds of books that people in college read.” If you hold a certain theory of education, that answer is not as circular as it sounds. The theory goes like this: In any group of people, it’s easy to determine who is the fastest or the strongest or even the best-looking. But picking out the most intelligent person is difficult, because intelligence involves many attributes that can’t be captured in a one-time assessment, like an I.Q. test. There is no intellectual equivalent of the hundred-yard dash. An intelligent person is open-minded, an outside-the-box thinker, an effective communicator, is prudent, self-critical, consistent, and so on. These are not qualities readily subject to measurement.Society needs a mechanism for sorting out its more intelligent members from its less intelligent ones, just as a track team needs a mechanism (such as a stopwatch) for sorting out the faster athletes from the slower ones. Society wants to identify intelligent people early on so that it can funnel them into careers that maximize their talents. It wants to get the most out of its human resources. College is a process that is sufficiently multifaceted and fine-grained to do this.
College is, essentially, a four-year intelligence test. Students have to demonstrate intellectual ability over time and across a range of subjects. If they’re sloppy or inflexible or obnoxious—no matter how smart they might be in the I.Q. sense—those negatives will get picked up in their grades. As an added service, college also sorts people according to aptitude. It separates the math types from the poetry types. At the end of the process, graduates get a score, the G.P.A., that professional schools and employers can trust as a measure of intellectual capacity and productive potential. It’s important, therefore, that everyone is taking more or less the same test.
I could have answered the question in a different way. I could have said, “You’re reading these books because they teach you things about the world and yourself that, if you do not learn them in college, you are unlikely to learn anywhere else.” This reflects a different theory of college, a theory that runs like this: In a society that encourages its members to pursue the career paths that promise the greatest personal or financial rewards, people will, given a choice, learn only what they need to know for success. They will have no incentive to acquire the knowledge and skills important for life as an informed citizen, or as a reflective and culturally literate human being. College exposes future citizens to material that enlightens and empowers them, whatever careers they end up choosing.



Full Article Below:
June 6, 2011 Issue

Live And Learn
Why we have college.
By 
Louis Menand

More and more Americans are going to college, but how many of them are actually learning anything?

Illustration by BARRY BLITT

My first job as a professor was at an Ivy League university. The students were happy to be taught, and we, their teachers, were happy to be teaching them. Whatever portion of their time and energy was being eaten up by social commitments—which may have been huge, but about which I was ignorant—they seemed earnestly and unproblematically engaged with the academic experience. If I was naïve about this, they were gracious enough not to disabuse me. None of us ever questioned the importance of what we were doing.
At a certain appointed hour, the university decided to make its way in the world without me, and we parted company. I was assured that there were no hard feelings. I was fortunate to get a position in a public university system, at a college with an overworked faculty, an army of part-time instructors, and sixteen thousand students. Many of these students were the first in their families to attend college, and any distractions they had were not social. Many of them worked, and some had complicated family responsibilities.
I didn’t regard this as my business any more than I had the social lives of my Ivy League students. I assigned my new students the same readings I had assigned the old ones. I understood that the new students would not be as well prepared, but, out of faith or ego, I thought that I could tell them what they needed to know, and open up the texts for them. Soon after I started teaching there, someone raised his hand and asked, about a text I had assigned, “Why did we have to buy this book?”
I got the question in that form only once, but I heard it a number of times in the unmonetized form of “Why did we have to read this book?” I could see that this was not only a perfectly legitimate question; it was a very interesting question. The students were asking me to justify the return on investment in a college education. I just had never been called upon to think about this before. It wasn’t part of my training. We took the value of the business we were in for granted.
I could have said, “You are reading these books because you’re in college, and these are the kinds of books that people in college read.” If you hold a certain theory of education, that answer is not as circular as it sounds. The theory goes like this: In any group of people, it’s easy to determine who is the fastest or the strongest or even the best-looking. But picking out the most intelligent person is difficult, because intelligence involves many attributes that can’t be captured in a one-time assessment, like an I.Q. test. There is no intellectual equivalent of the hundred-yard dash. An intelligent person is open-minded, an outside-the-box thinker, an effective communicator, is prudent, self-critical, consistent, and so on. These are not qualities readily subject to measurement.
Society needs a mechanism for sorting out its more intelligent members from its less intelligent ones, just as a track team needs a mechanism (such as a stopwatch) for sorting out the faster athletes from the slower ones. Society wants to identify intelligent people early on so that it can funnel them into careers that maximize their talents. It wants to get the most out of its human resources. College is a process that is sufficiently multifaceted and fine-grained to do this.
College is, essentially, a four-year intelligence test. Students have to demonstrate intellectual ability over time and across a range of subjects. If they’re sloppy or inflexible or obnoxious—no matter how smart they might be in the I.Q. sense—those negatives will get picked up in their grades. As an added service, college also sorts people according to aptitude. It separates the math types from the poetry types. At the end of the process, graduates get a score, the G.P.A., that professional schools and employers can trust as a measure of intellectual capacity and productive potential. It’s important, therefore, that everyone is taking more or less the same test.
I could have answered the question in a different way. I could have said, “You’re reading these books because they teach you things about the world and yourself that, if you do not learn them in college, you are unlikely to learn anywhere else.” This reflects a different theory of college, a theory that runs like this: In a society that encourages its members to pursue the career paths that promise the greatest personal or financial rewards, people will, given a choice, learn only what they need to know for success. They will have no incentive to acquire the knowledge and skills important for life as an informed citizen, or as a reflective and culturally literate human being. College exposes future citizens to material that enlightens and empowers them, whatever careers they end up choosing.
In performing this function, college also socializes. It takes people with disparate backgrounds and beliefs and brings them into line with mainstream norms of reason and taste. Independence of mind is tolerated in college, and even honored, but students have to master the accepted ways of doing things before they are permitted to deviate. Ideally, we want everyone to go to college, because college gets everyone on the same page. It’s a way of producing a society of like-minded grownups.
If you like the first theory, then it doesn’t matter which courses students take, or even what is taught in them, as long as they’re rigorous enough for the sorting mechanism to do its work. All that matters is the grades. If you prefer the second theory, then you might consider grades a useful instrument of positive or negative reinforcement, but the only thing that matters is what students actually learn. There is stuff that every adult ought to know, and college is the best delivery system for getting that stuff into people’s heads.
A lot of confusion is caused by the fact that since 1945 American higher education has been committed to both theories. The system is designed to be both meritocratic (Theory 1) and democratic (Theory 2). Professional schools and employers depend on colleges to sort out each cohort as it passes into the workforce, and elected officials talk about the importance of college for everyone. We want higher education to be available to all Americans, but we also want people to deserve the grades they receive.

It wasn’t always like this. Before 1945, élite private colleges like Harvard and Yale were largely in the business of reproducing a privileged social class. Between 1906 and 1932, four hundred and five boys from Groton applied to Harvard. Four hundred and two were accepted. In 1932, Yale received thirteen hundred and thirty applications, and it admitted nine hundred and fifty-nine—an acceptance rate of seventy-two per cent. Almost a third of those who enrolled were sons of Yale graduates.
In 1948, through the exertions of people like James Bryant Conant, the president of Harvard, the Educational Testing Service went into business, and standardized testing (the S.A.T. and the A.C.T.) soon became the virtually universal method for picking out the most intelligent students in the high-school population, regardless of their family background, and getting them into the higher-education system. Conant regarded higher education as a limited social resource, and he wanted to make more strait the gate. Testing insured that only people who deserved to go to college did. The fact that Daddy went no longer sufficed. In 1940, the acceptance rate at Harvard was eighty-five per cent. By 1970, it was twenty per cent. Last year, thirty-five thousand students applied to Harvard, and the acceptance rate was six per cent.
Almost all the élite colleges saw a jump in applications this year, partly because they now recruit much more aggressively internationally, and acceptance rates were correspondingly lower. Columbia, Yale, and Stanford admitted less than eight per cent of their applicants. This degree of selectivity is radical. To put it in some perspective: the acceptance rate at Cambridge is twenty-one per cent, and at Oxford eighteen per cent.
But, as private colleges became more selective, public colleges became more accommodating. Proportionally, the growth in higher education since 1945 has been overwhelmingly in the public sector. In 1950, there were about 1.14 million students in public colleges and universities and about the same number in private ones. Today, public colleges enroll almost fifteen million students, private colleges fewer than six million.
There is now a seat for virtually anyone with a high-school diploma who wants to attend college. The City University of New York (my old employer) has two hundred and twenty-eight thousand undergraduates—more than four times as many as the entire Ivy League. The big enchilada of public higher education, the State of California, has ten university campuses, twenty-three state-college campuses, a hundred and twelve community-college campuses, and more than 3.3 million students. Six per cent of the American population is currently enrolled in college or graduate school. In Great Britain and France, the figure is about three per cent.
If you are a Theory 1 person, you worry that, with so many Americans going to college, the bachelor’s degree is losing its meaning, and soon it will no longer operate as a reliable marker of productive potential. Increasing public investment in higher education with the goal of college for everyone—in effect, taxpayer-subsidized social promotion—is thwarting the operation of the sorting mechanism. Education is about selection, not inclusion.
If you are friendly toward Theory 2, on the other hand, you worry that the competition for slots in top-tier colleges is warping educational priorities. You see academic tulip mania: students and their parents are overvaluing a commodity for which there are cheap and plentiful substitutes. The sticker price at Princeton or Stanford, including room and board, is upward of fifty thousand dollars a year. Public colleges are much less expensive—the average tuition is $7,605—and there are also many less selective private colleges where you can get a good education, and a lot more faculty face time, without having to spend every minute of high school sucking up to your teachers and reformatting your résumé. Education is about personal and intellectual growth, not about winning some race to the top.
It would be nice to conclude that, despite these anxieties, and given the somewhat contradictory goals that have been set for it, the American higher-education system is doing what Americans want it to do. College is broadly accessible: sixty-eight per cent of high-school graduates now go on to college (in 1980, only forty-nine per cent did), and employers continue to reward the credential, which means that there is still some selection going on. In 2008, the average income for someone with an advanced degree (master’s, professional, or doctoral) was $83,144; for someone with a bachelor’s degree, it was $58,613; for someone with only a high-school education, it was $31,283.
There is also increasing global demand for American-style higher education. Students all over the world want to come here, and some American universities, including N.Y.U. and Yale, are building campuses overseas. Higher education is widely regarded as the route to a better life. It is sometimes pointed out that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg were college dropouts. It is unnecessary to point out that most of us are not Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.

It’s possible, though, that the higher education system only looks as if it’s working. The process may be sorting, students may be getting access, and employers may be rewarding, but are people actually learning anything? Two recent books suggest that they are not. They suggest it pretty emphatically.
“Academically Adrift” (Chicago; $25) was written by two sociologists, Richard Arum (N.Y.U.) and Josipa Roksa (University of Virginia). Almost a third of it, sixty-eight pages, is a methodological appendix, which should give the general reader a clue to what to expect. “Academically Adrift” is not a diatribe based on anecdote and personal history and supported by some convenient data, which is what books critical of American higher education often are. It’s a social-scientific attempt to determine whether students are learning what colleges claim to be teaching them—specifically, “to think critically, reason analytically, solve problems, and communicate clearly.”
Arum and Roksa consider Theory 1 to be “overly cynical.” They believe that the job of the system is to teach people, not just to get them up the right educational ladders and down the right career chutes. They think that some people just aren’t capable of learning much at the college level. But they think that people who do go to college ought to be able to show something for the time and expense.
The authors decided that, despite a lot of rhetoric about accountability in higher education, no one seemed eager to carry out an assessment, so they did their own. They used a test known as the Collegiate Learning Assessment, or C.L.A. The test has three parts, though they use data from just one part, the “performance task.” Students are, for example, assigned to advise “an employer about the desirability of purchasing a type of airplane that has recently crashed,” and are shown documents, such as news articles, an F.A.A. accident report, charts, and so on, and asked to write memos. The memos are graded for “critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving, and writing.”
The test was given to a group of more than two thousand freshmen in the fall of 2005, and again, to the same group, in the spring of 2007. Arum and Roksa say that forty-five per cent of the students showed no significant improvement, and they conclude that “American higher education is characterized by limited or no learning for a large proportion of students.”
The study design raises a lot of questions, from the reasonableness of assessing learning growth after only three full semesters of college to the reliability of the C.L.A. itself. The obvious initial inference to make about a test that does not pick up a difference where you expect one is that it is not a very good test. And, even if the test does measure some skills accurately, the results say nothing about whether students have acquired any knowledge, or socially desirable attitudes, that they didn’t have before they entered college.
There are other reasons for skepticism. It’s generally thought (by their professors, anyway) that students make a developmental leap after sophomore year—although Arum and Roksa, in a follow-up study completed after their book was finished, determined that, after four years, thirty-six per cent of students still did not show significant improvement on the C.L.A. But what counts as significant in a statistical analysis is a function of where you set the bar. Alexander Astin, the dean of modern higher-education research, who is now an emeritus professor at U.C.L.A., published a sharp attack on Arum and Roksa’s methodology in the Chronicle of Higher Education, and, in particular, on the statistical basis for the claim that forty-five per cent of college students do not improve.



“O.K., but don’t call me again until you have something more specific than ‘Life isn’t fair.’”
Even leaving the C.L.A. results aside, though, “Academically Adrift” makes a case for concern. Arum and Roksa argue that many students today perceive college as fundamentally a social experience. Students spend less time studying than they used to, for example. In 1961, students reported studying for an average of twenty-five hours a week; the average is now twelve to thirteen hours. More than a third of the students in Arum and Roksa’s study reported that they spent less than five hours a week studying. In a University of California survey, students reported spending thirteen hours a week on schoolwork and forty-three hours socializing and pursuing various forms of entertainment.
Few people are fully reliable reporters of time use. But if students are studying less it may be because the demands on them are fewer. Half the students in the study said that they had not taken a single course in the previous semester requiring more than twenty pages of writing. A third said that they had not taken a course requiring more than forty pages of reading a week. Arum and Roksa point out that professors have little incentive to make their courses more rigorous. Professors say that the only aspect of their teaching that matters professionally is student course evaluations, since these can figure in tenure and promotion decisions. It’s in professors’ interest, therefore, for their classes to be entertaining and their assignments not too onerous. They are not deluded: a study carried out back in the nineteen-nineties (by Alexander Astin, as it happens) found that faculty commitment to teaching is negatively correlated with compensation.
Still, Arum and Roksa believe that some things do make a difference. First of all, students who are better prepared academically for college not only do better when they get to college; they improve more markedly while they’re there. And students who take courses requiring them to write more than twenty pages a semester and to read more than forty pages a week show greater improvement.
The most interesting finding is that students majoring in liberal-arts fields—sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities—do better on the C.L.A., and show greater improvement, than students majoring in non-liberal-arts fields such as business, education and social work, communications, engineering and computer science, and health. There are a number of explanations. Liberal-arts students are more likely to take courses with substantial amounts of reading and writing; they are more likely to attend selective colleges, and institutional selectivity correlates positively with learning; and they are better prepared academically for college, which makes them more likely to improve. The students who score the lowest and improve the least are the business majors.

Sixty per cent of American college students are not liberal-arts majors, though. The No. 1 major in America is, in fact, business. Twenty-two per cent of bachelor’s degrees are awarded in that field. Ten per cent are awarded in education, seven per cent in the health professions. More than twice as many degrees are given out every year in parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness studies as in philosophy and religion. Since 1970, the more higher education has expanded, the more the liberal-arts sector has shrunk in proportion to the whole.
Neither Theory 1 nor Theory 2 really explains how the educational system works for these non-liberal-arts students. For them, college is basically a supplier of vocational preparation and a credentialling service. The theory that fits their situation—Theory 3—is that advanced economies demand specialized knowledge and skills, and, since high school is aimed at the general learner, college is where people can be taught what they need in order to enter a vocation. A college degree in a non-liberal field signifies competence in a specific line of work.
Theory 3 explains the growth of the non-liberal education sector. As work becomes more high-tech, employers demand more people with specialized training. It also explains the explosion in professional master’s programs. There are now well over a hundred master’s degrees available, in fields from Avian Medicine to Web Design and Homeland Security. Close to fourteen times as many master’s degrees are given out every year as doctorates. When Barack Obama and Arne Duncan talk about how higher education is the key to the future of the American economy, this is the sector they have in mind. They are not talking about the liberal arts.
Still, students pursuing vocational degrees are almost always required to take some liberal-arts courses. Let’s say that you want a bachelor’s degree in Culinary Arts Management, with a Beverage Management major, from the University of Nevada Las Vegas. (Hmm. I might have taken a wrong turn in my education somewhere.) To get this degree, U.N.L.V. requires you to take two courses in English (Composition and World Literature), one course in philosophy, one course in either history or political science, courses in chemistry, mathematics, and economics, and two electives in the arts and humanities. If your professional goal is, let’s say, running the beverage service at the Bellagio, how much effort are you going to put into that class on World Literature?

This is where Professor X enters the picture. Professor X is the nom de guerre of a man who has spent more than ten years working evenings (his day job is with the government) as an adjunct instructor at “Pembrook,” a private four-year institution, and “Huron State,” a community college that is evidently public. The academic motivation of the students at these schools is utilitarian. Most of them are trying to get jobs—as registered nurses or state troopers, for example—that require a college degree, and they want one thing and one thing only from Professor X: a passing grade.
Professor X published an article in The Atlantic a few years ago about his experiences. David Brooks mentioned the piece in his Times column, and it provoked a small digital storm. “In the Basement of the Ivory Tower” (Viking; $25.95) is the book version. The author holds an M.F.A. in creative writing (he teaches composition and literature), and he writes in the style of mordant self-deprecation that is the approved M.F.A. mode for the memoir genre. He can be gratuitously snarky about his colleagues (though not about his students), but he’s smart and he’s generally good company. “In the Basement of the Ivory Tower” has the same kind of worm’s-eye charm as Stephen Akey’s “College” (1996), a story of undergraduate misadventures at Glassboro State College, though “College” is funnier.
Professor X has entwined his take on teaching with episodes in his personal life involving the purchase of a house he could not afford and subsequent marital tension. These parts of the book are too vague to be engaging. If you are going to go down the confessional path, you have to come across with the lurid details. We never find out where Professor X lives, what his wife does, what his kids are like, or much else about him. This is a writer who obviously enjoys the protection of a pseudonym. “In the Basement of the Ivory Tower” is one of those books about higher education that are based on anecdote and personal history and supported by some convenient data (sort of like this review, actually), but the story is worth hearing.
Professor X thinks that most of the students he teaches are not qualified to attend college. He also thinks that, as far as writing and literature are concerned, they are unteachable. But the system keeps pushing them through the human-capital processor. They attend either because the degree is a job requirement or because they’ve been seduced by the siren song “college for everyone.” X considers the situation analogous to the real-estate bubble: Americans are being urged to invest in something they can’t afford and don’t need. Why should you have to pass a college-level literature class if you want to be a state trooper? To show that you can tough it out with Henry James? As Professor X sees it, this is a case of over-selection.
It’s also socially inefficient. The X-Man notes that half of all Americans who enter college never finish, that almost sixty per cent of students who enroll in two-year colleges need developmental (that is, remedial) courses, and that less than thirty per cent of faculty in American colleges are tenure-track. That last figure was supplied by the American Federation of Teachers, and it may be a little low, but it is undeniable that more than half the teaching in American colleges is done by contingent faculty (that is, adjuncts) like Professor X.
This does not mean, of course, that students would learn more if they were taught by tenured professors. Professor X is an adjunct, but he is also a dedicated teacher, and anyone reading his book will feel that his students respect this. He reprints a couple of course evaluations that sum up his situation in two nutshells:
Course was better than I thought. Before this I would of never voluntarily read a book. But now I almost have a desire to pick one up and read. I really like [Professor X], this is why I took the course because I saw he was teaching it. He’s kind of enthusiastic about things that probably aren’t that exciting to most people, which helps make the three hours go by quicker.
Professor X blames this state of affairs on what he calls “postmodern modes of thought,” and on the fact that there are more women teaching in college, which has had “a feminizing effect on the collective unconscious of faculty thought.” He also takes some shots at the academic field of composition and rhetoric, which he regards as low on rigor and high on consciousness-raising. This all seems beside the point. Professor X’s own pedagogy is old-fashioned and his grading is strict (he once failed nine students in a class of fifteen)—and he hasn’t had much luck with his students, either.
When he is not taking on trends in modern thought, Professor X is shrewd about the reasons it’s hard to teach underprepared students how to write. “I have come to think,” he says, “that the two most crucial ingredients in the mysterious mix that makes a good writer may be (1) having read enough throughout a lifetime to have internalized the rhythms of the written word, and (2) refining the ability to mimic those rhythms.” This makes sense. If you read a lot of sentences, then you start to think in sentences, and if you think in sentences, then you can write sentences, because you know what a sentence sounds like. Someone who has reached the age of eighteen or twenty and has never been a reader is not going to become a writer in fifteen weeks. On the other hand, it’s not a bad thing for such a person to see what caring about “things that probably aren’t that exciting to most people” looks like. A lot of teaching is modelling.
Professor X has published a follow-up essay, in The Atlantic, to promote the book. He’s on a mini-crusade to stem the flood of high-school graduates into colleges that require them to master a liberal-arts curriculum. He believes that students who aren’t ready for that kind of education should have the option of flat-out vocational training instead. They’re never going to know how to read Henry James; they’re never going to know how to write like Henry James. But why would they ever need to?
This is the tracking approach. You don’t wait twenty years for the system to sort people out, and you don’t waste resources on students who won’t benefit from an academically advanced curriculum. You make a judgment much earlier, as early as middle school, and designate certain students to follow an academic track, which gives them a liberal education, and the rest to follow a professional or vocational track. This is the way it was done for most of the history of higher education in the West. It is still the way it’s done in Britain, France, and Germany.
Until the twentieth century, that was the way it worked here, too. In the nineteenth century, a college degree was generally not required for admission to law school or medical school, and most law students and medical students did not bother to get one. Making college a prerequisite for professional school was possibly the most important reform ever made in American higher education. It raised the status of the professions, by making them harder to enter, and it saved the liberal-arts college from withering away. This is why liberal education is the élite type of college education: it’s the gateway to the high-status professions. And this is what people in other parts of the world mean when they say they want American-style higher education. They want the liberal arts and sciences.

Assuming that these new books are right (not a fully warranted assumption), and that many students are increasingly disengaged from the academic part of the college experience, it may be because the system has become too big and too heterogeneous to work equally well for all who are in it. The system appears to be drawing in large numbers of people who have no firm career goals but failing to help them acquire focus. This is what Arum and Roksa believe, anyway. Students at very selective colleges are still super-motivated—their motivation is one of the reasons they are selected—and most professors, since we are the sort of people who want a little gold star for everything we do, still want to make a difference to their students. But when motivation is missing, when people come into the system without believing that what goes on in it really matters, it’s hard to transform minds.
If there is a decline in motivation, it may mean that an exceptional phase in the history of American higher education is coming to an end. That phase began after the Second World War and lasted for fifty years. Large new populations kept entering the system. First, there were the veterans who attended on the G.I. Bill—2.2 million of them between 1944 and 1956. Then came the great expansion of the nineteen-sixties, when the baby boomers entered and enrollments doubled. Then came co-education, when virtually every all-male college, apart from the military academies, began accepting women. Finally, in the nineteen-eighties and nineties, there was a period of remarkable racial and ethnic diversification.
These students did not regard college as a finishing school or a ticket punch. There was much more at stake for them than there had been for the Groton grads of an earlier day. (How many hours do you think they put in doing homework?) College was a gate through which, once, only the favored could pass. Suddenly, the door was open: to vets; to children of Depression-era parents who could not afford college; to women, who had been excluded from many of the top schools; to nonwhites, who had been segregated or under-represented; to the children of people who came to the United States precisely so that their children could go to college. For these groups, college was central to the experience of making it—not only financially but socially and personally. They were finally getting a bite at the apple. College was supposed to be hard. Its difficulty was a token of its transformational powers.
This is why “Why did we have to buy this book?” was such a great question. The student who asked it was not complaining. He was trying to understand how the magic worked. I (a Theory 2 person) wonder whether students at that college are still asking it. ♦



  • Louis Menand has contributed to The New Yorker since 1991, and has been a staff writer since 2001.



June 6, 2011 Issue
Live And LearnWhy we have college.
By Louis Menand




More and more Americans are going to college, but how many of them are actually learning anything?

Illustration by BARRY BLITT


My first job as a professor was at an Ivy League university. The students were happy to be taught, and we, their teachers, were happy to be teaching them. Whatever portion of their time and energy was being eaten up by social commitments—which may have been huge, but about which I was ignorant—they seemed earnestly and unproblematically engaged with the academic experience. If I was naïve about this, they were gracious enough not to disabuse me. None of us ever questioned the importance of what we were doing.
At a certain appointed hour, the university decided to make its way in the world without me, and we parted company. I was assured that there were no hard feelings. I was fortunate to get a position in a public university system, at a college with an overworked faculty, an army of part-time instructors, and sixteen thousand students. Many of these students were the first in their families to attend college, and any distractions they had were not social. Many of them worked, and some had complicated family responsibilities.
I didn’t regard this as my business any more than I had the social lives of my Ivy League students. I assigned my new students the same readings I had assigned the old ones. I understood that the new students would not be as well prepared, but, out of faith or ego, I thought that I could tell them what they needed to know, and open up the texts for them. Soon after I started teaching there, someone raised his hand and asked, about a text I had assigned, “Why did we have to buy this book?”
I got the question in that form only once, but I heard it a number of times in the unmonetized form of “Why did we have to read this book?” I could see that this was not only a perfectly legitimate question; it was a very interesting question. The students were asking me to justify the return on investment in a college education. I just had never been called upon to think about this before. It wasn’t part of my training. We took the value of the business we were in for granted.
I could have said, “You are reading these books because you’re in college, and these are the kinds of books that people in college read.” If you hold a certain theory of education, that answer is not as circular as it sounds. The theory goes like this: In any group of people, it’s easy to determine who is the fastest or the strongest or even the best-looking. But picking out the most intelligent person is difficult, because intelligence involves many attributes that can’t be captured in a one-time assessment, like an I.Q. test. There is no intellectual equivalent of the hundred-yard dash. An intelligent person is open-minded, an outside-the-box thinker, an effective communicator, is prudent, self-critical, consistent, and so on. These are not qualities readily subject to measurement.
Society needs a mechanism for sorting out its more intelligent members from its less intelligent ones, just as a track team needs a mechanism (such as a stopwatch) for sorting out the faster athletes from the slower ones. Society wants to identify intelligent people early on so that it can funnel them into careers that maximize their talents. It wants to get the most out of its human resources. College is a process that is sufficiently multifaceted and fine-grained to do this.
College is, essentially, a four-year intelligence test. Students have to demonstrate intellectual ability over time and across a range of subjects. If they’re sloppy or inflexible or obnoxious—no matter how smart they might be in the I.Q. sense—those negatives will get picked up in their grades. As an added service, college also sorts people according to aptitude. It separates the math types from the poetry types. At the end of the process, graduates get a score, the G.P.A., that professional schools and employers can trust as a measure of intellectual capacity and productive potential. It’s important, therefore, that everyone is taking more or less the same test.
I could have answered the question in a different way. I could have said, “You’re reading these books because they teach you things about the world and yourself that, if you do not learn them in college, you are unlikely to learn anywhere else.” This reflects a different theory of college, a theory that runs like this: In a society that encourages its members to pursue the career paths that promise the greatest personal or financial rewards, people will, given a choice, learn only what they need to know for success. They will have no incentive to acquire the knowledge and skills important for life as an informed citizen, or as a reflective and culturally literate human being. College exposes future citizens to material that enlightens and empowers them, whatever careers they end up choosing.
In performing this function, college also socializes. It takes people with disparate backgrounds and beliefs and brings them into line with mainstream norms of reason and taste. Independence of mind is tolerated in college, and even honored, but students have to master the accepted ways of doing things before they are permitted to deviate. Ideally, we want everyone to go to college, because college gets everyone on the same page. It’s a way of producing a society of like-minded grownups.
If you like the first theory, then it doesn’t matter which courses students take, or even what is taught in them, as long as they’re rigorous enough for the sorting mechanism to do its work. All that matters is the grades. If you prefer the second theory, then you might consider grades a useful instrument of positive or negative reinforcement, but the only thing that matters is what students actually learn. There is stuff that every adult ought to know, and college is the best delivery system for getting that stuff into people’s heads.
A lot of confusion is caused by the fact that since 1945 American higher education has been committed to both theories. The system is designed to be both meritocratic (Theory 1) and democratic (Theory 2). Professional schools and employers depend on colleges to sort out each cohort as it passes into the workforce, and elected officials talk about the importance of college for everyone. We want higher education to be available to all Americans, but we also want people to deserve the grades they receive.

It wasn’t always like this. Before 1945, élite private colleges like Harvard and Yale were largely in the business of reproducing a privileged social class. Between 1906 and 1932, four hundred and five boys from Groton applied to Harvard. Four hundred and two were accepted. In 1932, Yale received thirteen hundred and thirty applications, and it admitted nine hundred and fifty-nine—an acceptance rate of seventy-two per cent. Almost a third of those who enrolled were sons of Yale graduates.
In 1948, through the exertions of people like James Bryant Conant, the president of Harvard, the Educational Testing Service went into business, and standardized testing (the S.A.T. and the A.C.T.) soon became the virtually universal method for picking out the most intelligent students in the high-school population, regardless of their family background, and getting them into the higher-education system. Conant regarded higher education as a limited social resource, and he wanted to make more strait the gate. Testing insured that only people who deserved to go to college did. The fact that Daddy went no longer sufficed. In 1940, the acceptance rate at Harvard was eighty-five per cent. By 1970, it was twenty per cent. Last year, thirty-five thousand students applied to Harvard, and the acceptance rate was six per cent.
Almost all the élite colleges saw a jump in applications this year, partly because they now recruit much more aggressively internationally, and acceptance rates were correspondingly lower. Columbia, Yale, and Stanford admitted less than eight per cent of their applicants. This degree of selectivity is radical. To put it in some perspective: the acceptance rate at Cambridge is twenty-one per cent, and at Oxford eighteen per cent.
But, as private colleges became more selective, public colleges became more accommodating. Proportionally, the growth in higher education since 1945 has been overwhelmingly in the public sector. In 1950, there were about 1.14 million students in public colleges and universities and about the same number in private ones. Today, public colleges enroll almost fifteen million students, private colleges fewer than six million.
There is now a seat for virtually anyone with a high-school diploma who wants to attend college. The City University of New York (my old employer) has two hundred and twenty-eight thousand undergraduates—more than four times as many as the entire Ivy League. The big enchilada of public higher education, the State of California, has ten university campuses, twenty-three state-college campuses, a hundred and twelve community-college campuses, and more than 3.3 million students. Six per cent of the American population is currently enrolled in college or graduate school. In Great Britain and France, the figure is about three per cent.
If you are a Theory 1 person, you worry that, with so many Americans going to college, the bachelor’s degree is losing its meaning, and soon it will no longer operate as a reliable marker of productive potential. Increasing public investment in higher education with the goal of college for everyone—in effect, taxpayer-subsidized social promotion—is thwarting the operation of the sorting mechanism. Education is about selection, not inclusion.
If you are friendly toward Theory 2, on the other hand, you worry that the competition for slots in top-tier colleges is warping educational priorities. You see academic tulip mania: students and their parents are overvaluing a commodity for which there are cheap and plentiful substitutes. The sticker price at Princeton or Stanford, including room and board, is upward of fifty thousand dollars a year. Public colleges are much less expensive—the average tuition is $7,605—and there are also many less selective private colleges where you can get a good education, and a lot more faculty face time, without having to spend every minute of high school sucking up to your teachers and reformatting your résumé. Education is about personal and intellectual growth, not about winning some race to the top.
It would be nice to conclude that, despite these anxieties, and given the somewhat contradictory goals that have been set for it, the American higher-education system is doing what Americans want it to do. College is broadly accessible: sixty-eight per cent of high-school graduates now go on to college (in 1980, only forty-nine per cent did), and employers continue to reward the credential, which means that there is still some selection going on. In 2008, the average income for someone with an advanced degree (master’s, professional, or doctoral) was $83,144; for someone with a bachelor’s degree, it was $58,613; for someone with only a high-school education, it was $31,283.
There is also increasing global demand for American-style higher education. Students all over the world want to come here, and some American universities, including N.Y.U. and Yale, are building campuses overseas. Higher education is widely regarded as the route to a better life. It is sometimes pointed out that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg were college dropouts. It is unnecessary to point out that most of us are not Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.

It’s possible, though, that the higher education system only looks as if it’s working. The process may be sorting, students may be getting access, and employers may be rewarding, but are people actually learning anything? Two recent books suggest that they are not. They suggest it pretty emphatically.
“Academically Adrift” (Chicago; $25) was written by two sociologists, Richard Arum (N.Y.U.) and Josipa Roksa (University of Virginia). Almost a third of it, sixty-eight pages, is a methodological appendix, which should give the general reader a clue to what to expect. “Academically Adrift” is not a diatribe based on anecdote and personal history and supported by some convenient data, which is what books critical of American higher education often are. It’s a social-scientific attempt to determine whether students are learning what colleges claim to be teaching them—specifically, “to think critically, reason analytically, solve problems, and communicate clearly.”
Arum and Roksa consider Theory 1 to be “overly cynical.” They believe that the job of the system is to teach people, not just to get them up the right educational ladders and down the right career chutes. They think that some people just aren’t capable of learning much at the college level. But they think that people who do go to college ought to be able to show something for the time and expense.
The authors decided that, despite a lot of rhetoric about accountability in higher education, no one seemed eager to carry out an assessment, so they did their own. They used a test known as the Collegiate Learning Assessment, or C.L.A. The test has three parts, though they use data from just one part, the “performance task.” Students are, for example, assigned to advise “an employer about the desirability of purchasing a type of airplane that has recently crashed,” and are shown documents, such as news articles, an F.A.A. accident report, charts, and so on, and asked to write memos. The memos are graded for “critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving, and writing.”
The test was given to a group of more than two thousand freshmen in the fall of 2005, and again, to the same group, in the spring of 2007. Arum and Roksa say that forty-five per cent of the students showed no significant improvement, and they conclude that “American higher education is characterized by limited or no learning for a large proportion of students.”
The study design raises a lot of questions, from the reasonableness of assessing learning growth after only three full semesters of college to the reliability of the C.L.A. itself. The obvious initial inference to make about a test that does not pick up a difference where you expect one is that it is not a very good test. And, even if the test does measure some skills accurately, the results say nothing about whether students have acquired any knowledge, or socially desirable attitudes, that they didn’t have before they entered college.
There are other reasons for skepticism. It’s generally thought (by their professors, anyway) that students make a developmental leap after sophomore year—although Arum and Roksa, in a follow-up study completed after their book was finished, determined that, after four years, thirty-six per cent of students still did not show significant improvement on the C.L.A. But what counts as significant in a statistical analysis is a function of where you set the bar. Alexander Astin, the dean of modern higher-education research, who is now an emeritus professor at U.C.L.A., published a sharp attack on Arum and Roksa’s methodology in the Chronicle of Higher Education, and, in particular, on the statistical basis for the claim that forty-five per cent of college students do not improve.



“O.K., but don’t call me again until you have something more specific than ‘Life isn’t fair.’”
Even leaving the C.L.A. results aside, though, “Academically Adrift” makes a case for concern. Arum and Roksa argue that many students today perceive college as fundamentally a social experience. Students spend less time studying than they used to, for example. In 1961, students reported studying for an average of twenty-five hours a week; the average is now twelve to thirteen hours. More than a third of the students in Arum and Roksa’s study reported that they spent less than five hours a week studying. In a University of California survey, students reported spending thirteen hours a week on schoolwork and forty-three hours socializing and pursuing various forms of entertainment.
Few people are fully reliable reporters of time use. But if students are studying less it may be because the demands on them are fewer. Half the students in the study said that they had not taken a single course in the previous semester requiring more than twenty pages of writing. A third said that they had not taken a course requiring more than forty pages of reading a week. Arum and Roksa point out that professors have little incentive to make their courses more rigorous. Professors say that the only aspect of their teaching that matters professionally is student course evaluations, since these can figure in tenure and promotion decisions. It’s in professors’ interest, therefore, for their classes to be entertaining and their assignments not too onerous. They are not deluded: a study carried out back in the nineteen-nineties (by Alexander Astin, as it happens) found that faculty commitment to teaching is negatively correlated with compensation.
Still, Arum and Roksa believe that some things do make a difference. First of all, students who are better prepared academically for college not only do better when they get to college; they improve more markedly while they’re there. And students who take courses requiring them to write more than twenty pages a semester and to read more than forty pages a week show greater improvement.
The most interesting finding is that students majoring in liberal-arts fields—sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities—do better on the C.L.A., and show greater improvement, than students majoring in non-liberal-arts fields such as business, education and social work, communications, engineering and computer science, and health. There are a number of explanations. Liberal-arts students are more likely to take courses with substantial amounts of reading and writing; they are more likely to attend selective colleges, and institutional selectivity correlates positively with learning; and they are better prepared academically for college, which makes them more likely to improve. The students who score the lowest and improve the least are the business majors.

Sixty per cent of American college students are not liberal-arts majors, though. The No. 1 major in America is, in fact, business. Twenty-two per cent of bachelor’s degrees are awarded in that field. Ten per cent are awarded in education, seven per cent in the health professions. More than twice as many degrees are given out every year in parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness studies as in philosophy and religion. Since 1970, the more higher education has expanded, the more the liberal-arts sector has shrunk in proportion to the whole.
Neither Theory 1 nor Theory 2 really explains how the educational system works for these non-liberal-arts students. For them, college is basically a supplier of vocational preparation and a credentialling service. The theory that fits their situation—Theory 3—is that advanced economies demand specialized knowledge and skills, and, since high school is aimed at the general learner, college is where people can be taught what they need in order to enter a vocation. A college degree in a non-liberal field signifies competence in a specific line of work.
Theory 3 explains the growth of the non-liberal education sector. As work becomes more high-tech, employers demand more people with specialized training. It also explains the explosion in professional master’s programs. There are now well over a hundred master’s degrees available, in fields from Avian Medicine to Web Design and Homeland Security. Close to fourteen times as many master’s degrees are given out every year as doctorates. When Barack Obama and Arne Duncan talk about how higher education is the key to the future of the American economy, this is the sector they have in mind. They are not talking about the liberal arts.
Still, students pursuing vocational degrees are almost always required to take some liberal-arts courses. Let’s say that you want a bachelor’s degree in Culinary Arts Management, with a Beverage Management major, from the University of Nevada Las Vegas. (Hmm. I might have taken a wrong turn in my education somewhere.) To get this degree, U.N.L.V. requires you to take two courses in English (Composition and World Literature), one course in philosophy, one course in either history or political science, courses in chemistry, mathematics, and economics, and two electives in the arts and humanities. If your professional goal is, let’s say, running the beverage service at the Bellagio, how much effort are you going to put into that class on World Literature?

This is where Professor X enters the picture. Professor X is the nom de guerre of a man who has spent more than ten years working evenings (his day job is with the government) as an adjunct instructor at “Pembrook,” a private four-year institution, and “Huron State,” a community college that is evidently public. The academic motivation of the students at these schools is utilitarian. Most of them are trying to get jobs—as registered nurses or state troopers, for example—that require a college degree, and they want one thing and one thing only from Professor X: a passing grade.
Professor X published an article in The Atlantic a few years ago about his experiences. David Brooks mentioned the piece in his Times column, and it provoked a small digital storm. “In the Basement of the Ivory Tower” (Viking; $25.95) is the book version. The author holds an M.F.A. in creative writing (he teaches composition and literature), and he writes in the style of mordant self-deprecation that is the approved M.F.A. mode for the memoir genre. He can be gratuitously snarky about his colleagues (though not about his students), but he’s smart and he’s generally good company. “In the Basement of the Ivory Tower” has the same kind of worm’s-eye charm as Stephen Akey’s “College” (1996), a story of undergraduate misadventures at Glassboro State College, though “College” is funnier.
Professor X has entwined his take on teaching with episodes in his personal life involving the purchase of a house he could not afford and subsequent marital tension. These parts of the book are too vague to be engaging. If you are going to go down the confessional path, you have to come across with the lurid details. We never find out where Professor X lives, what his wife does, what his kids are like, or much else about him. This is a writer who obviously enjoys the protection of a pseudonym. “In the Basement of the Ivory Tower” is one of those books about higher education that are based on anecdote and personal history and supported by some convenient data (sort of like this review, actually), but the story is worth hearing.
Professor X thinks that most of the students he teaches are not qualified to attend college. He also thinks that, as far as writing and literature are concerned, they are unteachable. But the system keeps pushing them through the human-capital processor. They attend either because the degree is a job requirement or because they’ve been seduced by the siren song “college for everyone.” X considers the situation analogous to the real-estate bubble: Americans are being urged to invest in something they can’t afford and don’t need. Why should you have to pass a college-level literature class if you want to be a state trooper? To show that you can tough it out with Henry James? As Professor X sees it, this is a case of over-selection.
It’s also socially inefficient. The X-Man notes that half of all Americans who enter college never finish, that almost sixty per cent of students who enroll in two-year colleges need developmental (that is, remedial) courses, and that less than thirty per cent of faculty in American colleges are tenure-track. That last figure was supplied by the American Federation of Teachers, and it may be a little low, but it is undeniable that more than half the teaching in American colleges is done by contingent faculty (that is, adjuncts) like Professor X.
This does not mean, of course, that students would learn more if they were taught by tenured professors. Professor X is an adjunct, but he is also a dedicated teacher, and anyone reading his book will feel that his students respect this. He reprints a couple of course evaluations that sum up his situation in two nutshells:
Course was better than I thought. Before this I would of never voluntarily read a book. But now I almost have a desire to pick one up and read. I really like [Professor X], this is why I took the course because I saw he was teaching it. He’s kind of enthusiastic about things that probably aren’t that exciting to most people, which helps make the three hours go by quicker.
Professor X blames this state of affairs on what he calls “postmodern modes of thought,” and on the fact that there are more women teaching in college, which has had “a feminizing effect on the collective unconscious of faculty thought.” He also takes some shots at the academic field of composition and rhetoric, which he regards as low on rigor and high on consciousness-raising. This all seems beside the point. Professor X’s own pedagogy is old-fashioned and his grading is strict (he once failed nine students in a class of fifteen)—and he hasn’t had much luck with his students, either.
When he is not taking on trends in modern thought, Professor X is shrewd about the reasons it’s hard to teach underprepared students how to write. “I have come to think,” he says, “that the two most crucial ingredients in the mysterious mix that makes a good writer may be (1) having read enough throughout a lifetime to have internalized the rhythms of the written word, and (2) refining the ability to mimic those rhythms.” This makes sense. If you read a lot of sentences, then you start to think in sentences, and if you think in sentences, then you can write sentences, because you know what a sentence sounds like. Someone who has reached the age of eighteen or twenty and has never been a reader is not going to become a writer in fifteen weeks. On the other hand, it’s not a bad thing for such a person to see what caring about “things that probably aren’t that exciting to most people” looks like. A lot of teaching is modelling.
Professor X has published a follow-up essay, in The Atlantic, to promote the book. He’s on a mini-crusade to stem the flood of high-school graduates into colleges that require them to master a liberal-arts curriculum. He believes that students who aren’t ready for that kind of education should have the option of flat-out vocational training instead. They’re never going to know how to read Henry James; they’re never going to know how to write like Henry James. But why would they ever need to?
This is the tracking approach. You don’t wait twenty years for the system to sort people out, and you don’t waste resources on students who won’t benefit from an academically advanced curriculum. You make a judgment much earlier, as early as middle school, and designate certain students to follow an academic track, which gives them a liberal education, and the rest to follow a professional or vocational track. This is the way it was done for most of the history of higher education in the West. It is still the way it’s done in Britain, France, and Germany.
Until the twentieth century, that was the way it worked here, too. In the nineteenth century, a college degree was generally not required for admission to law school or medical school, and most law students and medical students did not bother to get one. Making college a prerequisite for professional school was possibly the most important reform ever made in American higher education. It raised the status of the professions, by making them harder to enter, and it saved the liberal-arts college from withering away. This is why liberal education is the élite type of college education: it’s the gateway to the high-status professions. And this is what people in other parts of the world mean when they say they want American-style higher education. They want the liberal arts and sciences.

Assuming that these new books are right (not a fully warranted assumption), and that many students are increasingly disengaged from the academic part of the college experience, it may be because the system has become too big and too heterogeneous to work equally well for all who are in it. The system appears to be drawing in large numbers of people who have no firm career goals but failing to help them acquire focus. This is what Arum and Roksa believe, anyway. Students at very selective colleges are still super-motivated—their motivation is one of the reasons they are selected—and most professors, since we are the sort of people who want a little gold star for everything we do, still want to make a difference to their students. But when motivation is missing, when people come into the system without believing that what goes on in it really matters, it’s hard to transform minds.
If there is a decline in motivation, it may mean that an exceptional phase in the history of American higher education is coming to an end. That phase began after the Second World War and lasted for fifty years. Large new populations kept entering the system. First, there were the veterans who attended on the G.I. Bill—2.2 million of them between 1944 and 1956. Then came the great expansion of the nineteen-sixties, when the baby boomers entered and enrollments doubled. Then came co-education, when virtually every all-male college, apart from the military academies, began accepting women. Finally, in the nineteen-eighties and nineties, there was a period of remarkable racial and ethnic diversification.
These students did not regard college as a finishing school or a ticket punch. There was much more at stake for them than there had been for the Groton grads of an earlier day. (How many hours do you think they put in doing homework?) College was a gate through which, once, only the favored could pass. Suddenly, the door was open: to vets; to children of Depression-era parents who could not afford college; to women, who had been excluded from many of the top schools; to nonwhites, who had been segregated or under-represented; to the children of people who came to the United States precisely so that their children could go to college. For these groups, college was central to the experience of making it—not only financially but socially and personally. They were finally getting a bite at the apple. College was supposed to be hard. Its difficulty was a token of its transformational powers.
This is why “Why did we have to buy this book?” was such a great question. The student who asked it was not complaining. He was trying to understand how the magic worked. I (a Theory 2 person) wonder whether students at that college are still asking it. ♦



  • Louis Menand has contributed to The New Yorker since 1991, and has been a staff writer since 2001.



Proudly powered by Weebly