Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pyuxc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxc!chris
From: chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Universities, Class Structure
Message-ID: <162@pyuxc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Mar-86 10:08:37 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxc.162
Posted: Thu Mar  6 10:08:37 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Mar-86 03:07:55 EST
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway, NJ
Lines: 88


>>Most people who
>>go to college do so in preparation for becoming members of the
>>officer class of society.  That is the principal function of the
>>universities, from the viewpoint of society as a whole, and the
>>reason that they are supported.
>
>I find this curious, for two reasons.  How many people who go to university 
>go there with this explicitly in mind?  Are those who do not have this in
>be a source of joy in their lives.
>
>The following potted history is roughly right:
>In England, until the 19century, there were Oxford, Cambridge
>and Durham ( and London) which were centers of learning, and
>clerical training schools. In the 19thc, there was a vast
>increase in education and many others were established. The
>universities expanded to accomodate professional training
>(medics, lawyers, etc) so became partly vocational.
>In America, except for Yale and Harvard, things were similar.
>UC Berkeley had Mining, Engineering and Agriculture Schools,
>as did most of the land-grant colleges, thus starting out
>primarily as vocational institutions.

(CAVEAT: The following is culled from things I've heard or
read, but if anyone wants "references," I'll take the 5th.)

That sounds roughly like my understanding of the history
of the university.  Yes, they were established as "houses
of wisdom."  But somewhere along the line, the upper
and middle classes got it into their heads to send their
sons (sexism theirs, not mine; women were not often sent
to college back then) to college for "finishing," for want
of a better word.  This is the so-called "gentleman's education"
sought after in England and later America.
I guess they thought it desirable for the young nobles to be
to be able to quote Homer.

Anyway, this same trend has continued right thru the present;
as the middle class grew, more people entered the universities.
Also, I believe the trend toward more "practical" curricula
(other than medicine and law) can be traced to the period
when the wealthy industrialists in America started sending
their sons to college.  The landed gentry were content
to have the new lords of the manor quote the classics,
but I suspect the robber barons considered that kind
of thing classy but useless, so engineering, etc.,
were introduced.  And, of course, as college became more
affordable, people with lesser incomes sent their kids
to college, and demanded even more practical educations,
since those kids were not going to automatically join
the middle class; they were going to have to work for it.

Thus, the assertion that college is somehow involved
in preparing people to "take their place in society"
is quite valid.  College is perceived by most of us
as a minimum requirement for employment in a field
that will afford a middle-class income (or more).
Thus, those who go to college usually end up in the middle
and upper tiers of our society, those who don't
usually end up on the lower tiers.  (or, at least, I think
that's what everyone expects will happen)  

Could that be why people were so incensed at the notion
of bringing disadvantaged people into universities,
on the assumption that they would overcome their disadvantages
given a chance?  Could the negative reaction be based on
the fact that, to some people, the disadvantaged were
exactly the people they went to college to become middle class to
avoid?  How dare the universities try to bring THOSE people
HERE?  (Again, all please note, the racism noted here is
society's, not mine.)

I read an interesting article in the Village Voice recently
that shed some light on this whole thing.  It pointed out
that the study of English literature (my major) is a relatively
recent phenomenon, and stems from the growth of university enrollments.
As more and more people came in, it became apparent that not
all of them were qualified for or inclined toward the professions
universities normally trained for (medicine, law, education).
What, then, were they going to teach these people?
The answer was English lit.  After all, they wanted people to 
read some of those books anyway, and most of them could read,
where they might not have an aptitude for science,
so let's have them read books and analyze them.

Well, since I hated my major and considered it a waste of time
(why did I stay with it?  why not?) I felt vindicated by this
article.