By talking about "standards" you've already revealed a difference in axioms with the people who want to expand HE indefinitely. IME, they believe everyone has the same potential, and outcomes are determined by quality of education, so gatekeeping education is just keeping people down needlessly.
Yes, there's undoubtedly a faction that believes every person is as intelligent as every other person, and it is only social background / nurture that accounts for any differences.
But I think even if you believed that, it would still make more sense to have the people who right now can't do A-Levels go on to college, fill in those gaps in learning and then go (perhaps with more funding to do so), rather than jump straight to a bachelor's degree and be given a 2:1 without having basic literacy.
It feels that for many people in the discourse simply 'having a degree from something called a university' is the core metric that counts, regardless of whether that conveyed any intrinsic learning or led to better career options (which to me are the two actually valuable things).
I agree with you on Universities. However bizarre it might sound though I was shocked to discover that the US "Ivy League" openly promotes "Legacies" for admissions. I suspect that this is partly, if not mainly, to encourage alumni to donate. But strange to see this justified in public as maintaining the character of the institutions, which is essential to keeping them attractive for other candidates.
Greatly appreciate your countering the silliest argument for HE expansion. This argument had troubled me, but your answer is thoroughly persuasive.
I haven't read What Katy Did, but describing Little Women as a book where the characters are not seeking a decent life, respect and sufficient money to support themselves, is so bizarre that I wonder if this whole paragraph has been mangled and says the opposite of what you meant (it ends in a comma, which be a typo, or might indicate a crucial missing clause)?
I think the distinctive of a book like Little Women or Voyage of the Dawn Treader is not that the characters don't want ordinary things, but that the author/characters believe that even more important than these is shaping your character.
Thank you! Yes, the silliest argument is superficially compelling, but using Cambridge or other things as a lens exposes the fallacies.
You're clearly right that in Little Women the characters are also seeking a decent life, etc., which made me reflect on what I really meant.
For me, the strong distinction between LW and WKD, compared to, say, Anne of Green Gables is that in the former, the message is overwhelmingly of self-abnegation. It feels that the ultimate goal is to spend one's life selflessly serving others - in LW this could include within marriage - and that one should find one's principal joy in that service and self-sacrifice.
AoGG, in contrast, feels as though the characters find joy and purpose in lots of things: friendship, achievement, fun activities, family. However, the message is that (a) these should not be unwholesome ones, and (b) fun and good as these things are, one should be prepared to sacrifice them for greater good when called upon, as in Anne's and Gilbert's noble dual sacrifice at the end of the first book.
(VotDD feels much more in the latter camp to me).
As someone who doesn't take pleasure in sacrifice, but agrees it might sometimes be the right thing to do, I find the AoGG approach resonates much more as a reader, and the authors I'm talking about are much more in that camp, albeit with a lot more fighting and action.
To put it another way, 'It might hurt to do the right thing, but you should do it anyway, even though you don't want to, because it's right' is motivating for me in a way where 'you should want to do the right thing, because you should be selfless and be taking joy in self-sacrifice' is just alien and unhelpful.
And 'live you best life, but wholesomely and avoiding bad deeds' - whether in PEI or the Wild West - is a code I can aspire to, whereas 'devote your life to finding joy in service and self-sacrifice' is so alien that it loses any useful moral bite.
The other problem with number 3 is that it means the proportion of students going onto higher education can never go down - anyone who says they should go down is a hypocrite who wants to limit other people's children.
By talking about "standards" you've already revealed a difference in axioms with the people who want to expand HE indefinitely. IME, they believe everyone has the same potential, and outcomes are determined by quality of education, so gatekeeping education is just keeping people down needlessly.
Yes, there's undoubtedly a faction that believes every person is as intelligent as every other person, and it is only social background / nurture that accounts for any differences.
But I think even if you believed that, it would still make more sense to have the people who right now can't do A-Levels go on to college, fill in those gaps in learning and then go (perhaps with more funding to do so), rather than jump straight to a bachelor's degree and be given a 2:1 without having basic literacy.
It feels that for many people in the discourse simply 'having a degree from something called a university' is the core metric that counts, regardless of whether that conveyed any intrinsic learning or led to better career options (which to me are the two actually valuable things).
I agree with you on Universities. However bizarre it might sound though I was shocked to discover that the US "Ivy League" openly promotes "Legacies" for admissions. I suspect that this is partly, if not mainly, to encourage alumni to donate. But strange to see this justified in public as maintaining the character of the institutions, which is essential to keeping them attractive for other candidates.
Agree! Whatever our problems in the UK with universities, at least we don't have legacy admissions.
> Nothing worth obtaining comes easily.
Or rather, the things worth obtaining that do come easily -- you're probably already doing them. Such as eating tasty food.
Wlement should be element.
Greatly appreciate your countering the silliest argument for HE expansion. This argument had troubled me, but your answer is thoroughly persuasive.
I haven't read What Katy Did, but describing Little Women as a book where the characters are not seeking a decent life, respect and sufficient money to support themselves, is so bizarre that I wonder if this whole paragraph has been mangled and says the opposite of what you meant (it ends in a comma, which be a typo, or might indicate a crucial missing clause)?
I think the distinctive of a book like Little Women or Voyage of the Dawn Treader is not that the characters don't want ordinary things, but that the author/characters believe that even more important than these is shaping your character.
Thank you! Yes, the silliest argument is superficially compelling, but using Cambridge or other things as a lens exposes the fallacies.
You're clearly right that in Little Women the characters are also seeking a decent life, etc., which made me reflect on what I really meant.
For me, the strong distinction between LW and WKD, compared to, say, Anne of Green Gables is that in the former, the message is overwhelmingly of self-abnegation. It feels that the ultimate goal is to spend one's life selflessly serving others - in LW this could include within marriage - and that one should find one's principal joy in that service and self-sacrifice.
AoGG, in contrast, feels as though the characters find joy and purpose in lots of things: friendship, achievement, fun activities, family. However, the message is that (a) these should not be unwholesome ones, and (b) fun and good as these things are, one should be prepared to sacrifice them for greater good when called upon, as in Anne's and Gilbert's noble dual sacrifice at the end of the first book.
(VotDD feels much more in the latter camp to me).
As someone who doesn't take pleasure in sacrifice, but agrees it might sometimes be the right thing to do, I find the AoGG approach resonates much more as a reader, and the authors I'm talking about are much more in that camp, albeit with a lot more fighting and action.
To put it another way, 'It might hurt to do the right thing, but you should do it anyway, even though you don't want to, because it's right' is motivating for me in a way where 'you should want to do the right thing, because you should be selfless and be taking joy in self-sacrifice' is just alien and unhelpful.
And 'live you best life, but wholesomely and avoiding bad deeds' - whether in PEI or the Wild West - is a code I can aspire to, whereas 'devote your life to finding joy in service and self-sacrifice' is so alien that it loses any useful moral bite.
The other problem with number 3 is that it means the proportion of students going onto higher education can never go down - anyone who says they should go down is a hypocrite who wants to limit other people's children.