Vocational Education by Any Other Name....

A recent opinion piece in the WSJ by Allen Guelzo discusses the revival of vocational education in the U.S. and how this affects traditional liberal education.   His commentary falls prey to the common misconception that “vocational” education is somehow fundamentally different from (and opposed to) liberal arts education and values. This becomes clear in Mr. Guelzo’s opinion that “there’s no intrinsic difference between peeling a spud and popping a vein.”  This is ridiculous, of course.  Such a reductionist view of nursing (or perhaps all of healthcare?) has obviously not been informed by examining nursing curricula in America. 

Just as wrong-headed is his basic contention that somehow college has become the “trade school for the elite.”   This view lacks the contemporary societal context for understanding what a “trade” or “vocation” is.  And for that matter, the statement reflects an outmoded and elitist attitude concerning the function of higher education in America. A full treatment of the function of higher ed today can be found in my original post in this blog. Take a look.

To start, let’s be clear that “vocation” is not a four-letter word.  One wonders when having a vocation or a trade suddenly became déclassé.  And is having a vocation somehow more demeaning than having a “job,” or even a “profession”? 

Of course there is a long history of vocational education in America wherein the government defines what it means, primarily for purposes of allocating programmatic funds.  And we are all familiar with the concept of track systems in education, both domestically and abroad, where those who can’t cut the four-year liberal arts degree path are relegated to “training” programs. Each educated and employed according to his ability.  Or not.

The underpinnings of this history lie in the political and economic past of the United States.  And while the country has seen significant social development from an agrarian base to an industrial base to a knowledge-based technological foundation, our higher education system remains mired in structures and philosophies that are long since outdated.  This includes the view that the liberal arts remain the monolithic foundation of American education, and that professional education is somehow disdainful.

Mr. Guelzo (and many others) misses the fact that specialized education (dare I say “training”?) is essential to building a workforce, and a society, that demands knowledge and skills that did not exist when the liberal arts formed the singular base of higher education.  Preparing people for vocations does not lead us to a system of higher education in which the ideals of the liberal arts are abandoned. Rather, the liberal arts are now part of a more complex and sophisticated system that demands both critical thinking and technical ability. One shudders to think of the consequences of producing nurses who cannot think critically or understand the basic human condition.  Let them peel potatoes.

Mr. Guelzo claims that American higher education is already “vocationalized,” with degrees in disciplines like business, health care and STEM outstripping the humanities.  Perhaps he is of the opinion that these fields are somehow devoid of skills like critical thinking, and are not informed by humanistic values and perspectives.  I have worked in institutions of higher education that prepare students for positions in health care, business, and technology.  In every case the curriculum was infused with the liberal arts.  What Mr. Guelzo misses is the fact that his call for a “real vocationalism” as opposed to the humanities is faux.

To be continued…….