Is it fair to criticize a system from which we benefit?

It is clear that those on the left say “no”. When I participated in Baptistlife.com the more “liberal” (read – left leaning) members often mocked the more “conservative (read – classical liberal) members saying “do you send back your Social Security check? your tax credit? your Medicare benefit? then how can you criticize a system from which you choose to benefit?”

It sounds like a good argument. But it isn’t. William Voegeli addresses some of the problems with this common “critics of the safety net depend on it” line in his article “Magic Accounting” at National Review Online.

An American who warns an elected official to keep the government’s hands off a social-insurance program doesn’t misunderstand our welfare state but has grasped its central argument exactly as it has been presented. Social insurance, we have been told (and told and told), is a mechanism through which we insure ourselves against financial vulnerabilities. The benefits are ours because we paid for them in advance.

Although as Voegeli points out, this isn’t entirely true – but it’s how these programs were sold to the American people. What troubles me more however is the cynicism – once again the goal is not to explain why these are good programs that should not be reformed but simply to silence those who would dare suggest reform.

The facts on the ground, as they have been arranged there and then interpreted by liberals, would place the welfare state in a politically unassailable position. First, make sure that every American stands to receive benefits from at least one and preferably several social-welfare programs. Second, stipulate that the only people with the moral standing to criticize the welfare state are those in line for no benefits whatsoever from it. These premises combine to reduce the ranks of opponents liberals deign to recognize to survivalists living off the grid.

Precisely. It is interesting how often arguments from the social-political left ultimately boil down to “shut up”.

Meanwhile George Will has something to say about the bipartisan consensus on federally subsidized college loans.

Taxpayers, most of whom are not college graduates (the unemployment rate for high school graduates with no college education: 7.9 percent), will pay $6 billion a year to make it slightly easier for some fortunate students to acquire college degrees (the unemployment rate for college graduates: 4 percent).

I hesitate to question George Will but some of his numbers don’t sound right. Nevertheless he makes good points about whether continuing to take from the less educated and give to the more educated is good policy.

I haven’t had much time to post lately but am pretty upset about what happened yesterday thanks to Governor Jindal and his supporters in the Louisiana state legislature. I came across a post at Breitbart Big Government that clearly criticizes teachers who went to the state capitol yesterday. These are my responses to the article:

This article and some of the responses are deeply problematic. I say that as someone who (a) voted for Jindal (b) because of the last 3 years will *never* again vote for a Democrat and (c) is a classical liberal aka “conservative/libertarian” and quite the opposite of the modern leftist/statist/liberal.

There are serious problems with the legislation itself. Among the amendments shot down 12-6 (same votes every single time) were (i) evaluate charter school performance after one year (ii) that 75% of teachers at charter schools be certified. One pattern we have seen is that a child goes to a charter school, school takes government money (pay attention conservatives!), then after October 1 suspends/expels child. Child now must go to public school which just lost the funds to educate said child.

The grading system for schools is a scam designed to set them up for failure and takeover by charter schools. We brag about our magnet schools in Baton Rouge (my children attend them) which pull best students from regular schools thereby guaranteeing a lower performance.

The giant mistake both the left and the “right” make in pushing education reform is the obsessive focus on (iii) *teachers* and (iv) standardized test scores. Test scores are how you measure teacher effectiveness? See here is the problem – that fails to take into account a host of factors over which teachers have *no control*. What about the administration? education bureaucracy? families? children? Are we progressives? who think all you need do is change the material circumstances and you change the human?

Let me put it this way. You have an outstanding committed teacher. The bureaucracy forces her to jump through a gazillion hoops (forms, paperwork) that have little to do with classroom instruction. And/or tells teachers exactly what they must teach, for how many minutes, using state curriculum to the letter. Administration won’t deal with students who are disruptive or sick often because the state higher ups won’t allow it. Teacher inherits a new student who can’t read and the family turns down remedial help/special education – so that child pulls down scores for your class and for the school. Some kids don’t get 3 meals a day. Their parents are homeless. They’re being raised by a grandparent. Their family moves every few months from school to school. Their apartment has no electricity. The child is severely disturbed because of traumatic events over the last few years. Too many children have adopted the lazy entitlement mentality that has taken over our nation.

This is what my wife has to deal with. She and her colleagues do their best. But so much is outside their control. The school currently has a D. It might be taken over within 1-2 years. Do you really think a charter school is going to do that much better with the same set of children?

(second comment) I’m not done.

Is everything hunky dory? No. Are there bad lazy teachers? Sure. Should there be some reforms? No argument from me.

But the Jindal reforms go way too far, have had shockingly little input from actual educators, and seem to be little more rigging the system to make sure political friends and their cousins get charter school contracts. Who designed the grade system? A man whose sister is president of state charter school association. Hmm. Could there be money involved? Could this be an example of Republicans playing at crony capitalism?

I’m not against charter schools per se. Or even helping poor families have more choice. Or better accountability for teachers. But see last paragraph. This is too much, too fast, with not enough thought, being rammed through the legislature in a way that (pay attention conservatives!) significantly resembles how Democrats got their health care reform aka Obamacare passed.

Big Government and its readers may understandably look at this from some other state and think “bunch of lazy leftist unionized teachers deserve what they get”. Let me suggest that some of us actually live here, have kids in this system, have family who work in the system, and know what’s going on here. This is Louisiana *not Wisconsin* (or a host of other sclerotic leftist states).

My wife went to work by the way. The reason teachers felt the need to “call in sick” and head to the capitol is because *Jindal and the legislature* gave them no choice. All day Wednesday. When else pray tell could actual educators who spend time in classrooms comment on the legislation? Not that it mattered. Jindal had it in the bag a long time ago.

The legislation is flawed. And more troubling the matter in which it is being “rammed through” the state legislature (*cough Obamacare cough*). There are reasons to conclude – and I have some inside sources by the way – that this is largely about money and power/political ambition.

Conservatives should know better.

My wife is a teacher and former state worker. Many relatives on my mother’s side of the family are teachers and public/state workers. For some reason almost no one on my father’s side is a teacher or public/state/government worker. And when University Baptist Church two years ago began to offer/provide medical insurance for ministerial staff – read that again – our family declined. Would it save some money each year? Yes. But (1) the insurance my wife is able to provide is much better and (2) if we stay with her insurance then the state of Louisiana will provide medical insurance when we retire. If we go with insurance through the church we save a little now and lose a lot later.

By the way my wife (a) contributes to her retirement and (b) pays part of the cost of our medical insurance. Because she provides nearly all insurance for our family she takes home about 2/3 of her salary. No fooling.

So on the one hand we are a family that is counting on the type of pension and insurance coverage after retirement that is bankrupting states. On the other hand we contribute now to that pension and insurance coverage later.

There is a great deal one can say about the political battles taking place in states such as Wisconsin Ohio Indiana and New Jersey. What frosts my mug is summarized well by James Taranto:

It’s quite striking the way almost every lie the left ever told about the Tea Party has turned out to be true of the government unionists in Wisconsin and their supporters.

The Mainstream Media is doing everything it can to mislead and misinform/underinform the American people. I commend to you “Wisconsin Myths and Facts” by Matthew Shaffer that refutes about 90% of the propaganda we are being asked to believe about the situation in Wisconsin.

Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote an excellent piece comparing teachers to other workers. What I appreciate is he does not run down or denigrate teachers. No nonsense about how teachers have cushy jobs or only work ten months a year and so on. Only that they have it better than they used to. And better than most of the American workers whose taxes pay for teacher salaries and benefits:

So, yes, teaching is a noble profession upon which the future of our youth rests. It is not easy, and it is not as lucrative as the law or medicine. No doubt day-traders and the architects of hedge funds can make more in an hour than a sixth-grade social-studies teacher earns in a year, without either the caring or the commensurate work. Yet in comparison to most workers in the private sector, teachers are, in terms of working conditions and compensation, blessed — which is why we are told of Wisconsin that the problem is not really one of renegotiating wages, benefits, and pensions.

In these lean times, amid the furor and name-calling, we forget that teachers are not the wretched of the earth. They are often noble sorts, and that is reflected by what they make, how long they work, and the conditions under which they toil. If you doubt that, ask the almond farmer, roofer, or welder whose taxes pay their salaries.

Nicely put.

There has been some rumblings lately concerning whether there is ideological-political bias in academia. In a nutshell whether academia generally (a) excludes those of a conservative and/or classic liberal persuasion and thereby (b) is dominated by those of a leftist persuasion.

The reality is that 45-50% of academics are Democrats but only 9-16% are Republicans. Party affiliation does not always reflect political persuasion. About 45% describe themselves as liberal about 46% as moderate and only about 9% as conservative. (But see also Gross and Simmons 2007: 26 where 62% describe themselves as extremely to slightly liberal.) [ed - numbers corrected in response to comment.]

My experience at Cornell University was that professors who were Christian and/or classical liberals* were generally in the hard sciences and engineering fields. In the humanities and social sciences they could be counted on one maybe two hands. These were largely concentrated in Near Eastern Studies and Classical Studies departments. One politically liberal aka conservative or openly Christian professor could be found in Government (Political Science) in History in Philosophy and in English departments.

*[Quick excursus about terminology:

I refuse to use the terms liberal and conservative as most modern Americans typically understand them. Conservative is a relative term as Friedrich Hayek explained well. And liberal properly refers to someone who supports individual liberty - hence the need for the expression classic(al) liberal(ism). The term left(ist) is more appropriate to describe so-called liberal(s/ism). I am aware than not all so-called conservatives are classical liberals. And not all so-called liberals would regard themselves as being on the left. There is at least one more axis besides liberty-statism. In my opinion the terms liberal and conservative are generally still useful when discussing religion. My primary point is that the usage we find in current American political discourage - those who favor central/state control over individual liberty are liberal and those who favor liberty are conservative - is unacceptable.]

Many on the left have attempted to answer this charge not by arguing that there is no bias. There there are perfectly good reasons. That when hiring faculty no one asks “who did you vote for in the last election?” All they care about is your academic credentials and your areas of research/teaching specialty.

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic addresses this in her recent article “What Does Bias Look Like?” Many readers on the left took issue with the claim that academia systematically excludes classical liberals aka conservatives:

Those people offered their own alternate theories, which boiled down to:

•Smart people are almost always liberal
•Curiosity and interest in ideas is a liberal trait
•Conservatives are too rigid and authoritarian to maintain the open mind required of a professor
•Education erases false conservative ideas and turns people into liberals
•Conservatives don’t want to be professors because they’re more interested in something else (money, the military)
•Conservatives don’t want to be professors because they’re anti-intellectual
•Conservatives hold false beliefs that make them ineligible to be professors

Uh right. No bias there.

McArdle address many of these points and attempts to explain how bias – individual or institutional – can happen even if there is no explicit rule that excludes members of one group in favor of another group. It is remarkable that leftist academics – often so quick to point out how subtle racial discrimination can be – do not see the obvious parallels. Substitute the word “blacks” or “Jew(s/ish)” for “conservative” in the above theories and see how they sound.

This does not mean every time a classical liberal and/or committed Christian fails to secure a tenure track position it must be because of bias. A few years ago I attended a Veritas forum meeting at Louisiana State University for Christian academics. The scientist leading the discussion pointed out that sometimes the reason a committed Christian does not get the job is simply because s/he is less qualified. His/her research teaching and publishing record is not strong enough to be hired or to be granted tenure.

Ultimately classical liberals and/or Christians need to demonstrate excellence as teachers and scholars just like everyone else.

Which is why I do not support quotas. Rather the solution is to identify and address ways in which classic liberals aka conservatives are excluded from academia for reasons other than their academic qualifications.

I do believe that all factors being equal we would still have more leftists than classical liberals in academia. Although I could be wrong about that.

See also:

Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, “The Social and Political Views of American Professors”

Megan McArdle, “Unbiasing Academia”

H/T The Other McCain and Targuman

During deacon ordination service last Sunday was talking with someone who works at Louisiana State University. How are things? Grim. She then talked about how they(? who exactly?) are looking at cutting degree programs that have fewer numbers of students/graduates. Which often means the arts and humanities. She expressed the concern that we need to graduate well rounded people. People who do not just know math and science and engineering. But who know something about beauty and meaning and all that good stuff.

I half agree.

But why is it necessary to wait until college to become well rounded? Especially when we are talking about colleges/universities which are expensive? Especially if they are private? Why spend $100,000 over four years when you can spend $50,000 over two and be just as well prepared for a job and career? Save the four year degrees for those who really need it.*

*(Granted there are plenty of bargains out there. One of which is right up the road from me. Louisiana State University. Solid undergraduate education for a fraction of what it costs at many private colleges and universities. Especially if you qualify for TOPS.)

From Bloomberg:

The U.S. is focusing too much attention on helping students pursue four-year college degrees, when two-year and occupational programs may better prepare them for the job market, a Harvard University report said.

Frequently on this website I have argued that we need less four year academic institutions/degrees and more junior and community and vocational colleges. There are positive and negative reasons. Reasons we need less of one and reasons we need more of the other.

Recently I came across a disturbing statistic. More than 26% of college graduates in China are unemployed. Many Chinese people with undergraduate degrees or higher are looking for jobs that are “beneath” their level of education.

This is an awkward position for me to take. I do not want to see anyone lose their jobs. Especially jobs that require as much education and are as difficult to find as tenured academic positions. But the hard cold fact of the matter is we cannot afford/support all the campuses – and programs and positions – that we have right now in Louisiana. Personally I think the best approach is consolidation. If there are 6 identical programs with small numbers of students and faculty combine them into 2-3 programs. More specialized programs might be offered only at one or two schools. Convert some of our state universities into community colleges and/or vocational schools. People can save time and money getting their undergraduate requirements at the local community college. And/or they choose to get a two year vocational degree and not bother with going any further.

H/T Ace of Spades HQ who makes several fine points – such as why do people assume they can only be well rounded by going to college? and is that really what happens to most people who go through the time and expense of a four year academic degree?

Best picture I could find - it ain't all about the football!

God has been most merciful because for almost 12 years one of my favorite Christian brothers on the planet is a member of University Baptist and a former Chancellor of Louisiana State University. A few weeks ago he came by the church to copy something for his Sunday Bible study group and we talked for a while. I asked him about the cuts being made at Louisiana State University.

He said such cuts happen periodically. Each time people predict the death of the university. And each time the university somehow survives and grows and thrives. Because every organization needs periodically to trim the fat that has accumulated. Positions and programs that are added when none are removed or ended. Mission creep that leads to a university taking on more projects in the region that might not necessarily be part of its essential purpose.

But this time is different. This is not just trimming fat. This is cutting into the flesh. Perhaps even into bone. This could make Louisiana State University less than what it should be. This could hurt current and future students. This could damage the state of Louisiana as a whole.

From The Reveille today:

All the instructors in the English Department have received termination notices, said assistant professor Daniel Novak.

“Instructors [have gotten] their termination letters extended but still don’t have job security even when they teach the majority of the writing classes for students in this University,” Novak said.

The extension assures the instructors’ employment for an additional six months “but instead of giving them a contract for six months, they were given a letter saying they were going to be fired in six months,” Novak said.

The English Department has approximately 90 faculty members, 36 of whom are instructors who teach the writing portion of the University’s curriculum.

Instructors teach 62 percent of ENGL 1001 sections and 74 percent of 2000 sections of the department’s writing program, according to the Director of the University Writing Program Barbara Heifferon.

The writing instructor who is quoted extensively is also a member of University Baptist. She and her husband are pillars of this church family. They have hosted English Conversation for us several times.

This gets my attention also because if ever I had to leave vocational ministry I would be interested in doing something like teaching English as a Second Language or teaching English writing. During my doctoral studies at Cornell University I took a course on how to teach writing in English and taught or helped teach two Freshman Writing Seminars. It was one of my best experiences in graduate school. I like to think I was pretty good at it. The director of the program borrowed one of my handouts (on crux versus thesis) and asked me to share with the program some of my experiences – like an idiot said no can’t too busy or something – and was the only writing instructor whose students on the last day of class presented him with a cake. On top of which was written something rather mushy.

I hurt for the university. I hurt for the families I know who are affected. I hurt for a program that has a special place in my heart.

But speaking of what has a special place in my heart.

University writing courses are not optional. They are required by university accrediting agencies. This could cause problems for some students who need these classes in order to graduate. So what will the university do?

Faculty and staff in the English Department worry that the University’s recent academic alliance with the Baton Rouge Community College may be the University’s solution to circumvent part of the problem.

“Bears 2 Tigers,” a program allowing students to transfer seamlessly from BRCC to the University to complete a bachelor’s degree, was signed Sept. 28 by Chancellor Michael Martin and BRCC Chancellor Myrtle Dorsey.

The partnership, which originally only included engineering, has been extended to BRCC students with business, science, and humanities and social sciences associate degrees.

Reading through the comments section it appears many think this is a terrible solution. Some make disparaging comments about community colleges.

Dean Ed Warner (right)

I think it is long past time such a partnership was put in place. Community colleges have a special place in the heart of my own family. My grandfather (top of page 5) was dean of Mohawk Valley Community College in Utica New York which is a model of what a community college can be. One of his great achievements was to create such a network that allowed students to “transfer seamlessly” from Mohawk Valley Community College to many of the top universities in the state.

This was 30-40 years ago.

I am deeply sympathetic to faculty and staff at Louisiana State University who are being affected by these cuts. But my sympathy is mitigated by my strong appreciation for the important role that community colleges play in a healthy system of higher education. So what if some students choose to get their basic requirements at Baton Rouge Community College and then transfer seamlessly to Louisiana State University? What is wrong with that?

There is an answer to that question however. Which is what about students who don’t do that? Who begin and remain at Louisiana State? How will they fulfill their writing course requirement? The university cannot outsource the entire program can it?

For the record my wife and I hope and plan for my children to attend Louisiana State. So far they seem pretty happy with the idea. We have a personal interest in the future of Louisiana’s flagship university.

Addendum:

Revolution 21 says it very well indeed in “Louisiana: Stupid Is As Stupid Cuts”. As much as some might rebel against the idea we have too many “university” campuses and greatly need to combine/consolidate.

H/T Opinionated Catholic.

Although have been trying to shift this website away from politics still have a strong interest in the topic of education.

We are told that conservatives and liberals alike (classic liberals and leftists) have hailed the new documentary film “Waiting for Superman”. To a large extent the film places the blame on bad teachers and on unions for blocking efforts at educational reform.

Robert Weissberg at American Thinker offers another view:

Underlying Superman is the unarticulated (perhaps unspeakable) proposition that students themselves have nothing to do with “bad schools.” One can only wonder how many candidates Guggenheim interviewed before uncovering these five cinematic educationally goal-oriented kids with dedicated mothers. Even then, how many of them will endure the necessary tedium and hard work over twelve or sixteen years? My guess is that charter schools are largely a silver-bullet hope among today’s public school strugglers, not the golden opportunity to spend years mastering hard lessons. Such selectivity is classic Hollywood manipulation, today’s version of the rags-to-riches saga.

Moreover, it is as if the evil, bad public schools were initially constructed with graffiti, had architecture inadvertently conducive to mayhem, and were staffed by teachers disdaining innocent, knowledge-craving students. But inoperable equipment, tattered or missing textbooks, overflowing toilets, and similar “bad school” conditions do not mysteriously appear: students, bad students, are responsible. Truth be told, talented teachers rationally flee perilous settings, and to insist that schools underperform because they have “bad teachers” is but a duplicitous way of admitting that rambunctious students can drive out frustrated skilled teachers enjoying flight options. Allegedly dedicated students are not “victimized” by lifeless objects.

I am not entirely persuaded although that is not the same as saying Weissberg is wrong. To what extent can great teachers achieve positive results with students from troubled backgrounds? The regional director of Teach for America is a member of this congregation and has shared the story of when he taught for two years in the Bronx.  I know what my wife has been able to achieve with her students. There is an elementary school in north Baton Rouge whose students come from some of our worst neighborhoods. Thirteen years ago an exceptional principal took charge and began to turn it around and now it has been a Blue Ribbon School for five years and the only such school in Baton Rouge for 2010. Jaime Escalante anyone?

Do not misunderstand me. Of course environment matters. And many city schools reflect the cultural problems that are largely the result of well intentioned but deeply flawed government policies. But there are plenty of examples of what good schools can accomplish with what Weissberg would label as bad kids.

But Weissberg is correct to point out that you cannot just blame bad teachers. Teachers function within a system. If any other part of that system is messed up – the principal the administration the district the students and/or their parents – then that will reduce or even negate their effectiveness.

Provocative post by Coach Shef who serves with North Point Community Church in Atlanta area. I have heard the pastor Andy Stanley speak many times when attending the Catalyst Conference.

I believe one of the most destructive ideas for for ministry in church history is the idea of adult Sunday School.

…

The reason I think adult Sunday school is a destructive idea is this:

If leadership decided we needed to start adult Sunday school they would destroy our vibrant, growing, effective student ministry.

It is a little difficult to figure out from the post exactly what he is talking about. But it appears he is comparing small group ministry to Sunday school. They have a great small group ministry with middle school students. If they tried to have an adult Sunday school it would wreck that great small group ministry.

For what it is worth I now avoid the expression “Sunday school”. School? On Sundays? Yeah that will get people to come to church on Sundays. I prefer to say “(Sunday morning) Bible study”. Emphasizes that the purpose is to study the Bible. Helps get away from some of the latest-fad-book-study mayhem that one sees in some classes(? Sunday morning small groups?) at University Baptist Church.

However at this stage of my life I am convinced Bible study and nothing but is not the best way to prepare Christians to live for their faith. Bible study is crucial. But should be part of a larger whole that was around during the first centuries of the Christian church.

Catechesis.

What about theology? church history? missions? askesis? accountability? There are people at University Baptist Church who have been in Sunday school or Sunday morning Bible study – take your pick – for 70+ years. They know their Bibles pretty well. I have heard people say this to me in conversations. “We get tired of studying the same lessons over and over again”. They want something new and fresh and challenging and different. Often they continue to use the standard Bible study material but supplement it heavily with other topics and material. Yesterday I photocopied for a great brother in Christ a handout that outlines twelve different explanations for suffering in the world. It is one way that group of brothers keep things interesting.

Two days ago got together for coffee with a friend who is the priest-in-charge for a storefront Orthodox church. Half the congregation is converts/inquirers the other half is cradle Orthodox. He explained how the cradle Orthodox are not quite sure what to make of Sunday morning catechesis. Class on Sunday morning at church?

Vaht? Vee not do that in old country! Vee learn everytink from liturgy! Sunday morninks and festivals! Please to pass turnip soup!

This is a distinctly Protestant(?) practice – the concept of Sunday school is a Protestant invention – that Orthodox churches in America have borrowed. But it serves them well as a format for catechesis - formation in the Christian faith.

So on the one hand we have a Protestant church in Atlanta that says “Death to Sunday school!” On the other hand we have an Orthodox church in Baton Rouge that has found life in Sunday school although they do not call it that.

I have nothing against Sunday school er I mean Sunday morning Bible study. University Baptist Church clearly regards these Sunday morning classes as their small groups. We do not need a small group ministry. We have Sunday school. Although there are some who think we should also look at small groups. Might be Sunday morning but off campus. Might be during the week. Sounds good to me. If people want to do that instead of Sunday school. Or in addition.

The only real point I am trying to make is something I have been saying at University Baptist Church for the last few years. I believe in Bible study. Goodness I spent enough years studying the Bible in graduate school! But I have come to believe in a broader vision of catechesis of which Bible study is a part. At church or off campus. Sunday morning or not. What we need is not just more Bible study. What we need is catechesis.

H/T my friend Jonathan who really needs to get a blog of his own or he can just take over this one.

In the name of Social Studies teachers at a public school in Wellesley Massachusetts took the 6th graders to a local church. Needless to say one parent was sufficiently concerned to volunteer as a chaperon and bring along a camera.

They heard a short invitation to faith from the pastor. They learned how to pray and even participated in a time of prayer. At one point a spokesperson for the church explains that public schools in America are “fertile grounds where the seeds of the Christian faith can be planted in the hearts of non-Christian students”.

Read the whole thing and watch the video at National Review Online.

Look. I generally avoid posting about Islam. But this is outrageous. Not because there is anything wrong with Islam. Even though it turns out plenty is wrong with this particular mosque and its leadership. It is outrageous because public schools should not engage in religious indoctrination.

And it once again points out the willful intellectual blindness and moral cowardice we see all too often from elected and unelected officials. Did no one have the sense and the fortitude to say “look – learning about Islam is all well and fine but isn’t taking the kids to this mosque and letting them participate in sullah way past the line of what is appropriate?”

Important addendum: In fairness to the school it is not that simple:

[Superintendent] Wong said the mosque visit took place as part of the sixth-grade social studies course, “Enduring Beliefs in the World Today,’’ which includes lessons on Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. As part of the class, pupils also visit a synagogue, attend a gospel musical performance, and meet with Hindu religious representatives, she said.

But then that raises still more questions. If you are going to teach about religions then you must make difficult decisions about exactly which local faith community to visit and who gets to speak for that particular religion. Reform or Orthodox Jewish synagogue? Protestant or Roman Catholic or Orthodox church? Oh wait a gospel musical performance. Cornell University sponsored and funded an annual Festival of Black Gospel on the grounds that it was “African-American culture” not Christian worship. We laughed with joy when those leading the concert proclaimed to the audience “this is not about culture – we are here to worship the Lord!”

Several times on this website have addressed issues relating to higher education. Among other things I have suggested we have in recent decades overemphasized the need for a college/university education. That we need to do a better job of encouraging alternatives to a four year college/university degree. Such as trade schools and community colleges.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not against higher education. I have a PhD and two Master’s degrees. I had the privilege of teaching a couple classes as an adjunct professor at Tulane University in New Orleans. Most of my congregants either have a PhD or are working on one.

But we need to be honest. We have too many colleges and universities. Even humble Louisiana – not normally known as a center for higher education – has too many for its current population. Not to mention there are questions about the current cost of higher education as well as the quality thereof.

Michael Barone chimes in with a recent article on “Higher Education Bubble Poised to Burst”:

Imagine that you have a product whose price tag for decades rises faster than inflation. But people keep buying it because they’re told that it will make them wealthier in the long run. Then suddenly they find it doesn’t. Prices fall sharply, bankruptcies ensue, great institutions disappear.

Sound like the housing market? Yes, but it also sounds like what Glenn Reynolds, creator of instapundit.com, writing in The Examiner, has called “the higher education bubble.”

Government-subsidized loans have injected money into higher education, as they did into housing, causing prices to balloon. But at some point people figure out they’re not getting their money’s worth, and the bubble bursts.

At the risk of veering into partisan politics one must wonder why President Obama has emphasized so much the need for America to have more college graduates.