a complaint about education coverage in the NYT.

i've been meaning to blog about this matter for a few days, but have been too busy to do so. i apologize for my comments' tardiness, but here they are.

in the past few weeks, the new york times has published two features about problems facing recent college graduates. both have a lot of quotes from harvard students—indeed, one is entirely harvard-based—so i feel that i can get an insider's look at the claims made in these articles.

the first, cara buckley's "land a job, then what? graduates adjust to life with no going back," was published on june 20th. the essential thesis of the article was as follows:

They are, after all, entering the first summer of the rest of their lives: the deeply ingrained cycle of school followed by summers “off” — whether that meant camp or a short-term job or an internship — is over. There is no college to return to after Labor Day, and no real end in sight. Most will be fortunate to get a week off before the warm weather ends.

the second, sara rimer's "big paycheck or service? students are put to test," was published a scant three days later, on the 23rd. basic thesis here:

On other campuses as well, officials are questioning with new vigor whether too many top students who might otherwise turn their talents to a broader array of fields are being lured by high-paying corporate jobs, and whether colleges should do more to encourage students to consider other careers, especially public service.

read both articles for yourselves, because i don't want to mischaracterize them. however, i do have to hella critique them. i'll try to be brief.

now, the first one has one main problem: it's bad journalistic writing. the angle of the article is nothing more than (pardon my french) "shit sucks!" the story here, according to buckley, is that recent graduates have it hard.

“I’m not near a window,” Ms. Dinterman said of her office space, “So I never really know what it’s like outside.” ooh, scary. no windows. but look at the quotes buckley gets. for the most part, they show nothing more than ambivalence. “Everything is new and exciting, and it’s nice to be part of a team,” she said. “At the same time, you start to think, ‘Am I going to be able to do that for 50 years, every day, while having one week of vacation somewhere?’ This has definitely crossed my mind, but I’m not worrying about it yet.”

these are students who have jobs, and might remember their pre-full-time days fondly, or regret that they can't act on their "wanderlust," as one grad puts it, but... so what? there's no crisis here—buckley is manufacturing one. and that crisis isn't even a good story for a major paper! the invented crisis of students feeling trapped, or upset, or deeply frightened—that's such a wildly general assertion. how can you back that kind of claim up in a piece? you can't! it's journalism's worst tendency—amateur sociology—at its worst! it's shoddy writing! the education editors shouldn't have greenlit this one in the first place.

but my main problem is with rimer's piece, the one on public service.

first off, the article is solely about harvard students. now, rimer makes that fact clear in the intro, so i can't accuse her of lying, but she's certainly misleading the reader. how, in any way, are harvard kids a representative sample of anything? she doesn't even really extend it to the ivy league in general, at all. she tosses in a mention of obama's speech at wesleyan, with its paeans to public service, and quotes a couple university presidents, but for the most part, she's just quoting and looking at a small group of harvard kids. so when the headline is about "graduates" and not "harvard graduates," we're already in a bad area.

but leave that be. even within the context of the article, rimer didn't get the full story, and in doing so, ignored some really key details.

problem one: the concept of "fellowships" and "internships." quoth rimer and the president of amherst:

Universities are so concerned about this issue that some — Amherst, Tufts, the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, for example — have expanded public service fellowships and internships. “We’re in the business of graduating people who will make the world better in some way,” said Anthony Marx, Amherst’s president. “That’s what justifies the expense of the education.”

okay. since harvard kids are rimer's focus, i'll tell you about such fellowships at harvard. a prime example, from the office of career services, is the Elliott and Ann Richardson Fellowships in Public Service. sure, its aim is to give students "concrete experience with, and understanding of, the sort of problem or issue that their contemplated public service would address." great, sounds wonderful.

except for the fact that these fellowships aren't exactly easy to get.

take a look at the eligibility section. it's massive. and here are the application materials:

• an application form;
• a one-page list of activities or resume;
• a current official transcript;
• an essay of not more than 1,000 words outlining project plans;
• a budget proposal;
• two letters of recommendation; and
• in the case of a proposal to work with an organization, a statement from that organization confirming a place for the student.

a budget proposal? two letters of recommendation? i mean, those requirements aren't totally unreasonable, i guess, but it's not exactly like the university is giving this thing away!

and herein lies the essence of problem one. when students say things like “A lot of students have been asking the question: ‘We came to Harvard as freshmen to change the world, and we’re leaving to become investment bankers — why is this?’ ”, you have to understand that public service ISN'T EASY TO COME BY.

i guess what i'm saying is that the article paints the following equation, which is false: consulting = you have to get recruited and work hard to get it but it pays well; public service = the right thing to do and ergo easier to get into but doesn't pay well.

that equation is so wrong.

indeed, places like harvard, by having such stringent requirements for public service programs, sort of disincentivizes public service almost totally—after all, if it doesn't pay well AND it is freaking impossible to get a gig with it, then why bother? the investment banks are only a little bit harder to get into, but at least they pay you the big bucks!

and then there's problem two: teach for america gets waaaaay too much of a free ride here, as it does everywhere, when it comes to its hiring tactics.

In an interview this spring, Dr. Faust held up as a model Teach for America, the nonprofit program that has recruited large numbers of students at top colleges to teach in low-income schools for two years. With 9 percent of Harvard’s senior class applying to Teach for America this year, 37 students made the cut.

let's do the math (which rimer doesn't). harvard graduated 1,564 kids in the class of 2008. 9% of 1,564 is 141 (well, 140.76, but we'll round up). 37 of those kids made the cut. that means roughly TWO-THIRDS of the applicants to TFA got rejected.

think about that. i can't fault TFA for wanting the best and the brightest, but you have to understand: THESE PUBLIC-SERVICE "OPPORTUNITIES" ARE NOT EASY TO GET.

TFA uses targeted recruitment, multiple stages of interviews, case studies, and widespread cuts—just like the consulting and investment-banking firms. you could even argue that TFA is a corporatized version of public service, at least in its hiring.

bottom line: it's hard to become a public servant. by ignoring that fact, the article totally misses the point.

the assertion of the article is that college grads think something along the lines of, "gee, i'm a graduating college student, and i'm qualified for everything imaginable, so my only dilemma is whether to do good or make money!" when, in reality, for most college students in the world, that kind of qualification-level is so prohibitive that very few can even get access to "public service" work.

in sum, these two articles give a distorted, journalistically irresponsible view at the world of post-graduation employment for students at all levels—ivy leaguers, state schoolers, everyone. much less the average reader, who thinks he or she is getting a candid and factual glimpse into a changing world. but the view is candid on a shallow level, and factual only to the extent that the facts serve the writers' myopic view.

alright, enough ranting. i have to take a nap.