Professor X's "In the Basement of the Ivory Tower" was about his inability to impart to the (many, some?) students (continuing, adults, those needing credential to advance in his/her job) the basics of English writing and reading. Given the context of a community college, where the students are already coming to class from work and kids, the stories are not that surprising.

But his essay and the anecdotal evidence he gave from his personal experience is quite different, and critically so, from the question he raises here.

Answering "no" to the question "Is all this higher education really necessary?" is where I expect the author and education in the US is really going.

"Is all this higher education really necessary?" should be answered "yes" regardless of whether he or his students have the background or stamina to impart or acquire it.

I was recently reading a book on the history of mathematics and came to the author's discussion of what was expected of students into the early 20th century. The expectation was having studied and mastered Euclid's Elements (at a reasonable level). The author also commented that it has been especially pronounced in the US that the learning of mathematical thinking has been replaced by mere calculation; by contrast, European, Russian, and eastern countries still require an "Euclid" level of education.

In contrast to today, here is what Abraham Lincoln had to say about it. [Lincoln was about 40 years old at the time of the events described]

"In the course of my law reading I constantly came upon the word "demonstrate". I thought at first that I understood its meaning, but soon became satisfied that I did not. I said to myself, What do I do when I demonstrate more than when I reason or prove? How does demonstration differ from any other proof?

I consulted Webster's Dictionary. They told of 'certain proof,' 'proof beyond the possibility of doubt'; but I could form no idea of what sort of proof that was. I thought a great many things were proved beyond the possibility of doubt, without recourse to any such extraordinary process of reasoning as I understood demonstration to be. I consulted all the dictionaries and books of reference I could find, but with no better results. You might as well have defined blue to a blind man.

At last I said,- Lincoln, you never can make a lawyer if you do not understand what demonstrate means; and I left my situation in Springfield, went home to my father's house, and stayed there till I could give any proposition in the six books of Euclid at sight. I then found out what demonstrate means, and went back to my law studies."

If high schools don't teach such content (with rigor), it needs to be addressed in college. It was expected up to 4 generations ago, and such knowledge is needed now more than ever, even if you're only to become a lawyer.

Algebra, calculus, arts, reading and just having the opportunity to do it and think about it is justification enough for college. Going 100K in debt can be questioned, but then we are just haggling cost for value. As a school board member in Hortonville I faced stiff opposition when I spearheaded the implementation of foreign language in the elementary schools 11-12 years ago. Did I believe all of the students would become fluent? No. Did I expect them to? No. I looked at it as a darn good mental exercise to fire up their brains. Pure education and exposure for its own sake. Larry, this is the second time in 10 years I completely agree with you.

so important...

RCS,

I've been right all along. What has taken you so long to come around?