IHE: Foreign Language Enrollment Declines 16% Since 2016

[Sun_Worshiper]

But would we want to?

If somebody came to me for advice to study Economics, bingo, I got all the answers. Do such and such and at the very least minor in math. Now, suppose someone asks for advice on how to get into business. That can be done with econ UG, but a better answer is to major in business. So far, so good.

Now suppose the subject I'm teaching is on the verge of being cancelled on account of low enrollments. Does the ordinary advisor say study something else, endangering himself, or study what I have to offer.

We follow our own interests much more than students' interests.

Not everyone is so cynical as you.

[Wahoo Redux]

There is some truth to this. A colleague was just telling me that some of their students in a required class are very vocal about not seeing it as valuable or as something that will enhance their professional goals.

That said, students don't always know what is best for them or for their professional development.

So, college is just the pursuit of professional goals?  Is college reduced to job training?

In that case, I think we could make the bachelor's a two year program, or just institute associate degrees as the culmination of the undergraduate degree.  A few colleges, probably Ivies, could keep the 4-year bachelor's for those students who are interested in going to graduate school.

I'm serious.

[dismalist]

But would we want to?

If somebody came to me for advice to study Economics, bingo, I got all the answers. Do such and such and at the very least minor in math. Now, suppose someone asks for advice on how to get into business. That can be done with econ UG, but a better answer is to major in business. So far, so good.

Now suppose the subject I'm teaching is on the verge of being cancelled on account of low enrollments. Does the ordinary advisor say study something else, endangering himself, or study what I have to offer.

We follow our own interests much more than students' interests.

Not everyone is so cynical as you.

At the margin, if one's job were to be at stake, I'm sure they are. On average indeed not necessarily so!

But even on average, human beings aren't exactly like Mother Theresa, either.

[Wahoo Redux]

One problem we have is that a lot of students have really bad experiences in introductory language classes. Most of our TT language faculty don't like teaching "language instruction", so the folks teaching our intro classes are a revolving door of adjuncts/visitors.

I will admit that my undergrad language classes were humiliating, but that was almost always my own fault. 

Now I really wish to hell that I had taken the chance to study of foreign language seriously.  It is much more difficult to learn a new language on your own.

[kaysixteen]

Random points:

1) It is certainly true that 18yos do not know what-all the proper course of study for them would be, regardless of career goals, but...

2) even most of them can already figure out that a year of (as noted here commonly adjunct/ grad student-taught) intro to a FL class will accomplish very little in terms of real sustainable language acquisition for them, esp if they are not interested, and most of the languages they might study, certainly including all classical ones, do not really figure into their career objectives, either.

3) It is reallllllllyyyyyyyyy hard to run these classes, if they are laden-down with stereotypically 'reluctant' students.  I for one never did figure out how to dereluctantize them-- when I taught Latin in k12 private schools, where it was also required, I could get much help from their parents, but college teachers simply do not get to do that, even if the prof in question is a senior tenured-up prof with an endowed chair.  Latin 101-2 is also well noted for students who choose the classical language, as opposed to a modern one, simply because *they do not have to speak it* and will not be embarassingly called upon to do this by professors.

[Wahoo Redux]

I will say, however, as someone who is currently filling out non-academic job apps, that a great many of them ask if I have proficiency in any languages other than English.  I wish I could claim a more advanced level of Spanish right now.

[marshwiggle]

There is some truth to this. A colleague was just telling me that some of their students in a required class are very vocal about not seeing it as valuable or as something that will enhance their professional goals.

That said, students don't always know what is best for them or for their professional development.

So, college is just the pursuit of professional goals?  Is college reduced to job training?

Let me ask you the question: If students aren't doing it as "job training" , and they're not passionate about what they're studying, then what do you expect them to get out of it that's worth 4 years and several tens of thousands of dollars?

[Hibush]

For a country as multilingual as the US, the culture is intensely monolingual. Linguophobic even. That cultural theme has to play a big role in student choices about studying language in college. Even those who are genuinely interested in a well-rounded education and seek professorial guidance on the courses that will best meet that goal. What is the conversation with advisors like on that topic?

[Sun_Worshiper]

But would we want to?

If somebody came to me for advice to study Economics, bingo, I got all the answers. Do such and such and at the very least minor in math. Now, suppose someone asks for advice on how to get into business. That can be done with econ UG, but a better answer is to major in business. So far, so good.

Now suppose the subject I'm teaching is on the verge of being cancelled on account of low enrollments. Does the ordinary advisor say study something else, endangering himself, or study what I have to offer.

We follow our own interests much more than students' interests.

Not everyone is so cynical as you.

At the margin, if one's job were to be at stake, I'm sure they are. On average indeed not necessarily so!

But even on average, human beings aren't exactly like Mother Theresa, either.

You don't have to be Mother Theresa to do a professional job designing curriculum. And, at my place anyway, curriculum requirements are not designed in a silo by advisors or professors in failing departments. Things are done by committees, typically using data-driven insights.

[Sun_Worshiper]

There is some truth to this. A colleague was just telling me that some of their students in a required class are very vocal about not seeing it as valuable or as something that will enhance their professional goals.

That said, students don't always know what is best for them or for their professional development.

So, college is just the pursuit of professional goals?  Is college reduced to job training?

In that case, I think we could make the bachelor's a two year program, or just institute associate degrees as the culmination of the undergraduate degree.  A few colleges, probably Ivies, could keep the 4-year bachelor's for those students who are interested in going to graduate school.

I'm serious.

I'm not saying it is only for the pursuit of professional goals (although it should be that in large part). Nor do I think that highly specialized classes are the only ones that bring professional benefits to students. That history or writing class that the engineering student takes might be pretty valuable in the end as they move through their career path.

Not saying your idea is wrong, or right, but just clarifying my own thinking.

[eigen]

There is some truth to this. A colleague was just telling me that some of their students in a required class are very vocal about not seeing it as valuable or as something that will enhance their professional goals.

That said, students don't always know what is best for them or for their professional development.

So, college is just the pursuit of professional goals?  Is college reduced to job training?

In that case, I think we could make the bachelor's a two year program, or just institute associate degrees as the culmination of the undergraduate degree.  A few colleges, probably Ivies, could keep the 4-year bachelor's for those students who are interested in going to graduate school.

I'm serious.

This idea is curious to me. 4 years is already a push to get someone through the core material, even counting job prep, that students need in my field. In some related fields, there are pushes to move to 5-year degrees to fit it all in.

[Wahoo Redux]

There is some truth to this. A colleague was just telling me that some of their students in a required class are very vocal about not seeing it as valuable or as something that will enhance their professional goals.

That said, students don't always know what is best for them or for their professional development.

So, college is just the pursuit of professional goals?  Is college reduced to job training?

Let me ask you the question: If students aren't doing it as "job training" , and they're not passionate about what they're studying, then what do you expect them to get out of it that's worth 4 years and several tens of thousands of dollars?

Golly, Marshy, what I great question.  No one's ever thought of that.  I guess you could say...

increased general knowledge
a purchase on history -- since, you know, history shaped up
a purchase on science -- since, you know, our world is largely predicated upon science
a purchase on literature and the arts...you know, all the hallmarks of civilization
broader understanding of other peoples and cultures...since we have a multicultural world whether we like it or not
information and internet literacy
knowledge of how language works, not just the language one grows up speaking---maybe a little bi- or even tri-lingual because, you know, you might actually run into a non-native-speaker-of-English in your "professional career"
knowledge of the other important health and cultural measures of health such as psychology & sociology
a sense of ethos for college students instead of little pockets of professional training
tasking our future leaders and entrepreneurs of tomorrow with issues and problems they are not familiar with so they will learn to "think outside the box" or whatever metaphor fits a flexible, protean mind

And then students should have a solid grounding in their major, whether it will be their chosen field or not----because you know, of course, that only around 46% of college graduates work in their college major, so maybe, maybe it is a good idea to have someone with a "well-rounded" brain ready to embark on real-world "professional development."

And, as corny as it sounds, what we want are people who know a bit about the world and are able to think critically about it, not just think through the narrow lens of their college major.

But by all means, keep asking these inciteful questions. 

Or we could just choose to educate people to do one general thing for the rest of their lives.  That sounds like a good option to me.  Every culture needs drones. 

[Wahoo Redux]

There is some truth to this. A colleague was just telling me that some of their students in a required class are very vocal about not seeing it as valuable or as something that will enhance their professional goals.

That said, students don't always know what is best for them or for their professional development.

So, college is just the pursuit of professional goals?  Is college reduced to job training?

In that case, I think we could make the bachelor's a two year program, or just institute associate degrees as the culmination of the undergraduate degree.  A few colleges, probably Ivies, could keep the 4-year bachelor's for those students who are interested in going to graduate school.

I'm serious.

This idea is curious to me. 4 years is already a push to get someone through the core material, even counting job prep, that students need in my field. In some related fields, there are pushes to move to 5-year degrees to fit it all in.

Exactly.

But if all we worry about is "professional development" and "job placement" and "ROI," why wouldn't we eliminate anything not related to these goals and bring the degree down to two lean years of studying a very narrow professional field?

Why not do away with all the "filler" and "academic bloat" that stretches a degree out to 4 or 5 years? 

On Edit:  I suppose there are still some degree fields that need more than two years to produce a minimally trained worker, but those are the exception, it seems to me.  And even these could be reduced by at least a year if we eliminated useless subjects such as poetry, religious studies, and any science not directly related to  individual job prospects, just as examples.

[Hibush]

But if all we worry about is "professional development" and "job placement" and "ROI," why wouldn't we eliminate anything not related to these goals and bring the degree down to two lean years of studying a very narrow professional field?

I see ROI being a relevant consideration in a couple of contexts.

One is the individual one, should you spend the time and money on college or something else? That is the investment. One part of the return is the incremental increase in lifetime income. If your life has value and meaning only in terms of the money you make, then that is sufficient. But I don't think that "If" holds true for anyone. The other individual returns have to be taken into account. That's where the conversation with parent really matters, and I would think scholars of many stripes can find illustrations that resonate with both parents and prospective students.

The other is societal. Should society invest in the higher education of its population? Or in specific kinds of higher education? If you measure only by GDP or similar measures of economic activity, the numbers ought to be substantially positive.

Institutions receiving the money need to have that argument nailed down so that it works with legislators of any political persuasion. Again, scholars in various disciplines should be able to help illuminate the argument. In my experience a lot of incredibly talented scholars (in all disciplines) are so blindered that they can't work with audiences beyond the familiar ones in their narrow research and teaching activities.

[Wahoo Redux]

But if all we worry about is "professional development" and "job placement" and "ROI," why wouldn't we eliminate anything not related to these goals and bring the degree down to two lean years of studying a very narrow professional field?

I see ROI being a relevant consideration in a couple of contexts.

One is the individual one, should you spend the time and money on college or something else? That is the investment. One part of the return is the incremental increase in lifetime income. If your life has value and meaning only in terms of the money you make, then that is sufficient. But I don't think that "If" holds true for anyone. The other individual returns have to be taken into account. That's where the conversation with parent really matters, and I would think scholars of many stripes can find illustrations that resonate with both parents and prospective students.

The other is societal. Should society invest in the higher education of its population? Or in specific kinds of higher education? If you measure only by GDP or similar measures of economic activity, the numbers ought to be substantially positive.

Institutions receiving the money need to have that argument nailed down so that it works with legislators of any political persuasion. Again, scholars in various disciplines should be able to help illuminate the argument. In my experience a lot of incredibly talented scholars (in all disciplines) are so blindered that they can't work with audiences beyond the familiar ones in their narrow research and teaching activities.

Excellent points.

Are you suggesting that we adopt the 2 or 3 year degree option or continue with the liberal arts model we have now, just better articulated in terms of public relations?