A New York Times-Chronicle of Higher Education collaboration yields a story about the lowly undergraduate business department, where slackers slack with impunity. The?unremarkable business school student, the article suggests,?is an unconcerned fellow, missing class or sleeping through it, neglecting his studies, and generally spending his days drinking with buddies and powering through grocery money at his roommate's homemade poker table. And then he graduates with an entirely respectable GPA?a 3.1 or so, ?right in that meaty part of the curve, not showing off, not falling behind,? as George Constanza would say?and goes on to an entirely respectable white-collar job managing this, selling that, or representing the other. The most recent National Survey of Student Engagement, whatever that is, found that business majors ?spend less time preparing for class than do students in any other broad field,? according to the Times-Chronicle piece. They also score less well than any other group on the Collegiate Learning Assessment, which tests pupils in writing and reasoning at the start of their freshman year and then again at the end of their sophomore year. And business majors who intend to pursue graduate-level instruction at business school score lower on the GMAT, business school's SAT, than all other majors. Add to this that over 20 percent of the undergraduate degrees issued each year are business degrees, ?making it the most popular field of study,? and the worrying begins.
The article identifies three ?sources of trouble?: first, too many pupils choose their majors by default and opt for business because its seems a practical route to future employment; second, ?in management and marketing, [which are components of the business curriculum, and often separate majors in the business school]?no strong consensus has emerged about what students ought to learn or how they ought to learn it?; and finally, business schools are comparatively inexpensive to operate, which makes business majors profit-generators for their universities.
All true. But re-read the first trouble spot and then ask why anyone is surprised that undergraduate business majors seem to both learn less than their peers and be less motivated to learn. Each college student?chooses his major. The person who?chooses business is simply likely to be less interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake than the philosophy major and more interested in picking up a bit of practical information and, eventually, earning a piece of paper that will make him eligible for all types of jobs in which?awareness of Kant is?not vital. The undergraduate business major is a vocational, not academic, course of study, which is why Ivy League?kids?jazzed about?getting rich don't major in business (their schools don't offer it) but in economics?a difficult, academic subject.
Completely missing from the Times-Chronicle article is any speculation about the reason that undergraduate business majors at unselective colleges are there at all. They are there, of course, because so many jobs that shouldn't require a college diploma now do. Thus, 19-year-olds who with a few weeks of night school and on-the-job training could run the local bank with their eyes closed must now spend four years waiting around to receive a business degree of little inherent value toward?which they?devoted hours upon hours of strenuous Flip Cup and?Beer Pong?competition . . . when they could have been working in the real world?and growing up, which is what many of them wanted to do in the first place.
This is the inescapable fact: when more and more students attend college, the nature of college?what it fundamentally is?will change. The university will reshape itself to meet its clients' needs, and that means less academic, intellectual learning and more vocational training. It's a choice. Either schools are exclusive, rigorous, and scholarly or they are inclusive, slack, and career-oriented. It's clear which way they are headed.
?Liam Julian, Bernard Lee Schwartz Policy Fellow