Thoughts on Higher Education, Opportunity, and Systemic Inequality

Education is one of the cornerstones of the American Dream. As a society, we have come to see it as the great equalizer -- a mechanism that, however imperfectly, levels the playing field for children born into different socioeconomic backgrounds and allows individuals to achieve based on talent and effort, rather than on circumstance. This is universally seen as a social benefit. However, the way we discuss education as a culture requires more nuance, particularly with respect to disadvantaged students. This article in The Atlantic raises some interesting and thoughtful points:

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/the-danger-of-telling-poor-kids-that-college-is-the-key-to-social-mobility/283120/

It occurs to me that there are several different but intersecting camps of people who value education: those who see knowledge as a tool and those who see knowledge as a goal; and those who pursue knowledge for themselves and those who pursue knowledge in the interests of the broader community. I conceive of it something like the below (and pardon the primitive ASCII graph):

                    | Self                  | World                      
Theoretical  | Truth              | Intellectual Discourse
Applied       | Advancement | Social Change          

In theory, anybody should have the option of choosing any of these four paths (or even multiple paths, if they can manage it) without being told that one is better or more applicable to their situation. It's problematic that a vast population of American students is steered towards the "applied + self" box simply because of the circumstances of their birth. It's inherently unjust, even if it makes sense (especially within the Andrew Carnegie model of the American Dream) that a talented child growing up poor would prioritize climbing the socioeconomic ladder over other intellectual goals, especially compared to an equally talented child growing up in better conditions, for whom such advancement is not as crucial. The latter child is more likely to pursue one of the other three options simply because she wants to. The former child, however, faces significant societal pressures to choose "applied + self," even if she would have chosen one of the other three if fully informed and separated from external influences. After all, people tend to perform better in fields they find genuinely interesting.

This is a fundamental problem because it allows us to perpetuate -- and feel justified in perpetuating -- the systemic limitation of the free will of an entire population of our most vulnerable citizens, disadvantaged youth. It's similar to the idea: "People vote with their stomachs. Only when they are full do they vote with their minds." Just because, in practice, education allows the hungry to fill their stomachs, does not mean that education should be sold to the hungry as a means to fill their stomachs, while it is simultaneously sold to the well-fed as a means to enrich their minds. This, in itself, is a pernicious way that children of different family means are treated unequally, a way that is thus far completely sanctioned within our society. Rather, a truly just society calls for informed and educated citizens who freely choose their life's paths, and whose progress down those paths is determined not by how far behind they started, but rather the distance they are able and willing to walk -- and this will only happen when all children start on a more level field. All students should be allowed to pursue the path they find most rewarding, and to have their successes and failures reflect upon their own effort and talent, rather than on conditions beyond their control. And all students should have the opportunity to make an informed and unencumbered choice for themselves, out of the posited four, at the beginning of their journeys.

The Google Art Project

My sister sent this to me last week, and it's just about the coolest thing I've seen in a while (yes, I'm a museum geek):

http://maps.google.com/maps?ftr=sv.museums&utm_campaign=en&utm_medium=mapshpp&utm_source=en-mapshpp-na-us-gns-svn&utm_term=museums

An article about it (from The Atlantic):
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/the-google-art-project-makes-masterpieces-accessible-to-all/70634/

Basically, it's bringing Google Maps Street View into some of the world's most famous and amazing museums. How awesome is that?