Colleges should target learning, not time

April 24, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

The Morton Marcus [March 29] column on graduation rates hit home. I too do not like credentialism as an excuse to avoid evaluating performance. We are turning education more and more into what is better described as vocational training. We focus on time (four years) more than the capability to achieve a lifelong capacity for learning.

Tom Edison, George Westinghouse, Bill Gates and many others dropped out of school along the way and kept right on learning. I guide Ph.D. students and many keep moving ahead for a lifetime. Others check off requirement boxes, outlast the faculty and are intellectually deceased five years out of grad school. Nevertheless, they fill a spot where the job announcement required a Ph.D.

No doubt that MBA degrees in the thousands were required to destroy the economy with hubris, and teaching certificates are essential to quality education, more so than subject knowledge. I’m sure Marcus didn’t have a teaching license for anything in his 30 years at Indiana University.

Graduation rates are indeed very disturbing, but hitting 700 in baseball would be pretty good. Hitting 980 would take some pretty weak pitching. Given today’s life span and our knowledge-based economy, it does seem odd that high school and college are still four-year experiences, when a range of 3-6 would allow for a variable pace to get to the expected result.

Yes, employers want certificates or degrees because the owners of them “got through,” and it is a start. As an entrepreneur who has hired several thousand people, I only knew after a year if we’d done the right thing. Often I’d know I did the wrong thing after a week.


Pete Kissinger

Professor of chemistryPurdue University


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing