Everyone seems to agree that peer pressure is real. Groups have effects on individual behavior. Sometimes this is a bad thing when it involves social vices (violence, drugs, promiscuity) but peer pressure can also promote positive outcomes (kindness, love, and compassion). But can your peers actually have a substantive effect on your intelligence? Does simply associating with smart people make you smarter? This question has received large amount of anecdotal discussion, but very little scholarly discussion (perhaps because of the difficult nature of measuring the peer effect). The question, however, is not without substantial policy implications. For instance, you agree with many scholars in asserting that peers do affect ability to learn (i.e., students learn better, faster, more deeply in the company of able students than with weak ones), than would there be an aggregate increase of learning if admissions into higher education institutions were based on random selection (rather than test scores or gpa). Or perhaps there is a proper formula for the idea classroom or freshman class. Additionally, how does the increasingly impersonal technological world of education lose as peer interaction is reduced (I think of myself as I write this essay for a course of only one). There are additional questions of who counts as a peer? clearly students, but does the age matter? class? what about teacher or volunteer, or professional? The answers to these questions could lead to monumental changes in higher education policy, but they all depend on the underlying premise that peers matter.
It seems that higher education already accepts that premise; at least it does so implicitly through the race to selectivity in admissions. Southern Utah University recently unveiled its plan to become "the states only public liberal arts university." An important aspect of the strategic plan is to significantly raise tuition and become more selective in its admissions. It seems to me that very few have even questioned the correlation between an "elite" school and "selective admissions" and "high tuition." I admit that I did not even question the proposal because it just seemed to make intuitive sense. But why? As far as I can tell the primary justification is educational quality. Somehow, we simply associate high tuition and selective admissions with high educational quality--why? is such an assumption warranted.
Arguing from the premise that "peers matter," we can assert that selective admission increases the average aptitude of the student body (assuming that SATs and GPAs actually correlate with aptitude). If the quality of one's peers influence the learning ability of the individual, the smarter peers may actually contribute to the educational quality of the school. In a way, the elite schools seek to leverage student aptitude to accelerate learning. The students come to these more selective institutions because the learning environment and association with other bright students creates an opportunity for accelerated learning not possible in other "open access" institutions.
That sounds great, but I'm not convinced; I think its just a cover. These institutions use the image of greater education returns for an excuse for exclusivity. These institutions benefit from a "brand" which alumni carry with them. The brand is benefited from a sense of exclusivity--it means something more if not everybody can get one (which also means you can charge more for it). If this were truly about education we would see less exclusivity and greater leveraging of student aptitude to benefit other students.
This race to selectivity creates silos of accelerated learning which may increase the widening income gap in the United States. The elite institutions will only augment already advanced students while leaving those who deeply need assistance are left to public and open access institutions (if that). As a policy concern, the selectivity accentuates the growing class distinctions in the United States. The middle class we birthed is dying.
If peers matter for educational quality, admissions to universities should strive to discover the proper mixing and structuring of classes to optimize this value added product. Professors should structure class activities, discussions, and seating arrangements in strategic ways to get people of different aptitudes interacting. There will be some trial and error, but the results are promising--if you believe peers matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment