A lifetime ago, when I still lived in Iowa and had a front-row seat to the Democratic presidential primary, I attended one of Steve Bullock’s events. You’ve probably never heard of Bullock — he was a two-term governor of Montana and a late addition to the 2020 campaign.
I was a poor reservation Indian kid who started college intending to become pediatrician and then found my way to poetry and fiction. At no point whatsoever did I think of myself as a political activist. Over six years of college, I read hundreds of books of fiction and poetry. That's why I was in college. To read my way through as much of the world as I could and to have professors point me toward the most valuable books. It was all about the books.
Hahaha! That I would pay to see... Sherman Alexie in the Writing Center. 😂 Too bad you never were (to my knowledge) a professor. Your parodies of assessment, accreditation, and strategic planning would be, I'm sure, rib-splitting.
Joshua, what a beautiful piece this is, and I love that video at the end. My father would have agreed with you - in his case, he grew up with a single mother among the urban poor in Denver (although my grandmother was escaping from the farm of her immigrant Norwegian family in South Dakota). My dad got through Denver University on a full scholarship and managed to get a pol-sci Ph.D. with grants and a stint in the military. He was meant to be an academic, and his education meant everything to him, but it’s also true that he always felt like an outsider among the Ivy elite.
He drilled into me the problem of college debt, saying he’d get me through my BA if I could cover some of the costs with a scholarship (I did, although I don’t think that’s possible now), but for grad school, I was on my own. A few years later, I managed that by getting my employer to cover my tuition at a state university while I was working.
I say all this to highlight the motivation required if you don’t come from a privileged background. Probably my father’s most consequential achievement as an academic was to found and grow an “accelerated” degree program for adult students at his California state university. He loved those students, as do I the adult students I teach.
I agree that not everyone needs a college degree to thrive and make their way financially. There are many ways to educate yourself. But the one thing college courses will give you is a framework for how to learn, especially when it comes to putting in the effort to become a deep reader and writer. The growth I’ve seen in students when they’re ready to put in the time - and have affordable options - makes me think my father’s legacy lives on.
Thank you, Martha! I completely agree with you. I ran a workshop for a local writers club recently and loved it. The average age was over 50. Not a yawn in the crowd, and many stayed after to chat. I'll be teaching a course pro bono for the Lifelong Learning Institute at Penn State this fall (average age probably 60+). My parents both completed college degrees in their 50s, and I'm sure they were a delight to mentor.
You're right that our paths (and Bullock's) aren't feasible anymore. I began to see this near the end of my tenure at a private college in Iowa. Even when the college ditched the high sticker price and high discount model and adjusted tuition to the "real" price of about $16K/year (with little additional financial aid), I began to wonder if the debt was worth it for first-gen students. $40-60K in loans is still a lot for a young person who doesn't have family help.
I had the benefit of affordable tuition, a very generous student requisition program that gave me a good summer job with the Forest Service in my hometown (so I could live at home and save everything), Pell Grants, and other financial aid. I was debt free by the time I finished my MA. We'll continue to see class divisions widen if the affordability gap isn't addressed. Young people shouldn't have to mortgage their freedom for opportunity.
Absolutely, Joshua. I have been thinking a lot about how to set up an affordable course of writing lessons in a non-academic setting (I’ll probably start on Substack). Whatever we say about the inadequacies of online teaching, it allows students from all over the country and world to sign in for classes. These days, I find that the majority of my students are millennials, coming back to school for a variety of reasons, and not all of them are getting degrees. They hearten me in the midst of our very broken model for higher education.
My Dad, who taught literature at UC Davis, is SO HAPPY I will be teaching at a community college in the fall. He liked his students at Davis but he LOVED his students at Yuba CC.
Wow, just wow. I have struggled with the same thoughts you summarized so perfectly for as long as I can remember.
I read Tara Westover’s book several times and I came away thinking she could not have achieved what she achieved without all of those amazing people who were her advocates. I don’t think they received enough credit for carrying her along when she wanted to give up. Not many kids get that kind of advocacy. Few are ever told they are pure gold. She now talks about the gulf of opportunity that exists between many rural kids and those fortunate few who make it to the Ivy Leagues and I hope she continues to pursue solutions to that problem.
In one passage where she is with a friend as they share tea with Jordanian Bedouins, she marvels at how her education took her from her father’s junkyard and prepared her for just such a moment. Education, she muses, is the key to allow us to bridge cultures and feel at home in the world, completely comfortable wherever fate takes us.
I did not have an opportunity to study at Harvard or Cambridge. In fact, I dropped out of college and spent most of my adult life living and working abroad. I realize now it was the most demanding and exhaustive education one could ever undertake. When I finally returned to finish my college studies, I found it underwhelming. It seemed more like a rite of passage than a preparation to take on the world and in too many cases, the world of a deeply indebted graduate will be behind the counter of a Starbucks, instead of drinking tea in the Jordanian desert. But we do have that piece of parchment that establishes that we are special.
It’s time to rethink what we call education. At one time it was a way to train professionals, but also a way to keep the elite elite. The reality now is that vast swathes of our people achieve far below their potential and we are all poorer because of it. How can we structurally advocate for our young people in a way that allows many more to reach their full potential? I don’t know. I would like to know.
A lovely contribution -- thank you. Love this bit especially: "I read Tara Westover’s book several times and I came away thinking she could not have achieved what she achieved without all of those amazing people who were her advocates. I don’t think they received enough credit for carrying her along when she wanted to give up. Not many kids get that kind of advocacy."
Exactly right. The Jordanian scene would not have happened without her advocates. It is such an unnerving part of the narrative, that her BYU mentor had to overrule whatever body initially excluded her from the Cambridge trip, and then her Cambridge mentor just opened the door to Harvard (and took care of the money part). It's a glimpse of how things work behind the meritocratic facades. And it's why the college degree is no guarantee of success, especially for first-gen students who might have no advocates once they graduate. It makes me curious about Westover's process to finding an agent, whether she ground away at over-the-transom queries or whether (as I suspect) this was another opportunity that opened as a result of making it into Harvard? So some of those gifts keep on giving, but the seemingly arbitrary nature of her key turning points is more troubling than affirming when one thinks about rural kids writ large.
"How can we structurally advocate for our young people in a way that allows many more to reach their full potential? I don’t know. I would like to know." Me, too. All I know is that the difference maker for me was a superb public education. I think any reasonable answer starts with K-12.
I read somewhere on the web how she wrote the book, which required skills very different from her years of academic writing, by reading everything she could find about writing a memoir. I also remember something she mentioned about joining a writing group who were pretty harsh on her first draft. Apparently she learned quickly, because her final product is not only a compelling story, but also beautifully crafted. She wrote a masterpiece.
I agree. In our case, my wife, who completed her elementary ed degree at a small college in western Zimbabwe convinced me that we should homeschool and we never looked back. During our ten years in Maryland, when I was traveling around the world for 200-250 days a year, it gave our kids a sense of stability. They were members of homeschool groups who met weekly for field trips and special events.
When they were tweens, we uprooted and moved to one of the FSU ‘stans where they learned a couple of languages amazingly fast and were completely comfortable interacting with our international staff from Georgia, Ukraine, Russia, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Azerbaijan, Angola, and even the USA.
Kids are amazingly resilient and open to new experiences. We lived on a culdesach near the presidential dacha that was heavily guarded. My son quickly made friends with the guards and I remember one evening during the ancient Novruz holiday, he convinced the guards to build a fire so they all could jump through it and destroy whatever demons were following them.
When we returned, both went off to uni, where my daughter, born in Zimbabwe, followed her dream of becoming a pediatric speech therapist and finishing her graduate degree.
My 6’9” son, born in Malawi, somehow managed to land a full scholarship at a university in Alberta, where he graduated debt-free, got married, secured permanent residence status and worked as a safety trainer. He now owns his own company and is doing well. His sister now is the administrator of the clinic where she works and also continues to work with her “little nuggets.”
While our solution is not for everyone, it worked for us. There was a time when my son questioned the value of a degree. I told him to plow through it, get as much out of school as he could, and when he graduated, he’d have that magic piece of parchment. Sometimes one needs to pay the price to get a foot in the door.
For my kids, my wife and I were their advocates, but a lot of other good people pitched in and helped. We were blessed.
But that doesn’t answer my question about how all kids can live their dreams. In the meantime, I do my best to advocate for kids in our little mountain community. It really isn’t a place with many opportunities for them, but they do love to hear about things they haven’t thought about and to get encouragement to stretch their wings. Every kid deserves advocates.
A powerful story! I wrote about homeschool earlier this year, and the response has changed my thinking somewhat. I still believe the answer for enabling the most kids to live their dreams is investing in public K-12. But that view is shaped by living in two buoyant communities with excellent school systems, where my kids can reach their full potential while contributing to their peers. It's the best of the commons. I am quite aware that if our public system were not so good -- if we lived in my hometown, for instance -- I would be looking to maximize opportunity for my kids without thinking as much about the commons.
I needed advocates in a public school because no one in my family had been to college.
I’m certainly not anti-college, but in many cases the benefit doesn’t justify the cost, especially if it involves long-term indebtedness. Too many graduates in recent years end up in debt and without marketable skills. Not everybody with a PhD will find themselves on a tenure track. Learning skilled trades also opens many doors.
I agree. However, I have met some very brilliant people who were machinists or carpenters who later got degrees. I used to babysit for a guy who was a farmer for 10 years and quit to become a scientist.
It’s always been one of the great things about America that this is possible.
The opposite is also true. I know a lot of people who become jack of all trades and I think the life flexibility is partly due to the college education—like maybe they will start off work in tech or doing various skill based jobs even if not their degree but then they can more easily shift gears to teaching, public relations, fundraising or other jobs later where the college degree is very useful—so if people have this opportunity to do it, it can be of lifelong benefit, even if the path is not straight. My handyman has a PhD in theology! He has no regrets about his education.
I was going to reply in a similar direction. I have a young friend who paid his tuition for a two year diesel mechanic course that included a full set of SnapOn tools by working part time at Home Depot and then went straight into a lucrative job immediately upon graduation. His dream is to get an English degree in his spare time. I have another young friend who did a two year auto body course and she now specializes is restoring old cars simply for the joy of it. It is what she loves.
When I was a kid working on a summer farm job, I met the farmer next door who was a Rhodes scholar. A year or so later, I met a carpenter working in a very small town in southern Idaho who had a PhD in philosophy from Notre Dame. When we talked about it, he told me he never found a job as a philosopher, but at least he understood why! And I have a close friend from Georgia (Tbilisi, not Atlanta) who has a degree in international law, but who now drives an eighteen wheeler with her husband.
Finally, one of my favorite writers is William Gay, who didn't become a published writer until late in his career as a carpenter and drywall installer.
I'd have to write another (long) essay to respond on all the issues you raise so compellingly, Josh. (I won't) But you're raising all the right compelling questions., as always, in a way not that many people do on these subjects. The only truly compelling answer, I suspect you agree, from what I know, is a dramatic re-conception of how higher education is offered in this country.
And this take is important. As I read, I thought about my own original choices and challenges, the financial ones and the absence of any kind of advantageous connections, but the difference in time period and, to your point, of urban versus rural complicated the considerations beyond any simple comment.
Grew up in a small town in a trailer. I’m grateful I could go to school — it was far cheaper in the 80s. It was valuable and life-changing even though I’m still poor. Education matters for reasons that have little to do with money or careers.
Thanks, Michelle! I'm glad you found a way into the wide world. That was transformative for me, as well. If college were as affordable now as it was when we attended, I'd be writing a different essay.
I’m curious why you specifically excluded faith based nonprofits.
During my career in international humanitarian assistance, many of the most effective international organizations were faith based. Many had indigenous faith based organizations they partnered with, and operations research I took part in consistently showed higher levels of sustainability when projects were partnered with local faith based groups. For instance, in Zambia, we learned that women who were members of a local faith based community service organization were more likely to continue project interventions after the end of project funding and would continue as volunteers much longer than other groups.
I also did some preliminary research for a mother-child health project in Malawi (a USAID funded Child Survival grant) to find areas that were most underserved and had the highest infant and maternal mortality rates. I found that the consistently highest rates of female literacy (an excellent proxy indicator for child mortality), and lowest maternal and under 5 mortality was in areas where Scottish missionaries established mission schools and hospitals during the early 20th century. The highest maternal and child mortality rates, as well as lowest female literacy rates, were at the southern end of Lake Malawi and in the Lower Shire River valley where missionary groups were not as active.
A close friend did his doctoral research in Zambia on the phenomenon of why members in faith communities enjoyed significantly higher income growth and social mobility than those in his control group.
I understand that there is often a knee jerk reaction against any kind of religious involvement in civil society building because of the US cultural bias against faith based groups, but in my opinion, those groups often produce better outcomes and better sustainability than some of their counterpart organizations. Why would excluding national service members from experiencing exceptional performance and best practices be a good thing?
Sorry I lost track of this comment. I don't know enough about faith-based groups abroad, but some of the distrust has been deserved, given the saviorism and colonial mentality that can coincide with missionary efforts. At the same time, I'm aware that colonialism has already left its impact, and that cultures have grown up with hybridity, and that there can be real reciprocity with well managed groups.
But you have more expertise in this area than I. If I consciously excluded faith-based nonprofits (not sure that I did), it could have been because I was raised Pentecostal and have good reasons, based on that background, to be suspicious of evangelical groups. That is also a personal bias that might not be accurate or consistent with your experience. There are a lot of qualifiers necessary in this space, I think.
I was responding to another reader's comment about not including faith based organizations.
During my years in Africa, and especially in post-colonial Southern Africa, I often heard colonial settlers complain about “the uppity ideas” mission schools taught their students. Well before the 1883-85 Berlin Conference where Africa was hacked into colonial bite-size chunks, missionaries were busy building clinics and schools.
In pre-Malawi Nyasaland, an African American missionary advocated for indigenous self-rule in the early 1920s. Also in Malawi, mission hospitals were important sources of healthcare. One hospital I visited often, Malamulo Hospital, trained nurses, midwives, and physician assistants who staff the (also mission supported) rural clinics. The hospital led the fight against Hansen’s Disease in the Lower Shire Valley, and was also a research center for tropical diseases.
In Zambia and Zimbabwe, many if not most of the early post independence governments were staffed by mission school graduates.
Most missionaries I met over the years were political agnostics and were most concerned about the wellbeing of people in the countries where they served. The only faith based relief agency I refused to work with was Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse, because of the insistence that any resources they provided for our programs were tied to proselytizing efforts. I gave them a hard pass.
"the insistence that any resources they provided for our programs were tied to proselytizing efforts"
This is indeed the distinguishing factor and the reason for knee-jerk distrust. I take your word for the rest, having no direct knowledge or expertise!
But honestly, I only saw it from that one Christian organization. It was an ongoing problem in Sudan with local non Christian faith based organizations.
Also, several coalition governments pushed current politically correct ideologies in the Middle East that were especially inappropriate. I watched a video showing a young British woman teaching burka—clad Iraqi women about modern art. As she earnestly tried to explain Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountains” installation, actually nothing more a wall mounted urinal, the Iraqi women were first shocked, then nodded their heads disapprovingly toward one another. One observer said that at that moment, he knew the West had lost the battle for hearts and minds in the Middle East.
Apparently our new beliefs are less worthy than our ancient beliefs.
Well, David, a lot of terms in that sentence would require definition. Most of my friends in Montana follow the same news feeds that other Americans do. And they self-sort in the same ways. Some read the NY Times. Others read the Epoch Times or watch FOX. So I'm not sure there are any blanket statements to be made.
While I agree with your general assumption, that college education implies some curiosity about current events and cultural affairs, I don't think that's necessarily true anymore, either. Colleges are rapidly remaking themselves in the image of industry. History, foreign languages, literature, arts, political science -- all of the disciplines that cultivate literacy about current events -- are on the chopping block. So you could make the argument that many students just become more widely read in their pre-existing affinity group and emerge more equipped for activism than for open-minded citizenship. Not sure if you've read much about the campus protests, but the zero sum reasoning about Israel and Palestine doesn't reveal a better-informed college population, necessarily.
Anyway, long way of saying that it's complicated. I believe that the decline of public K-12 and college is a net negative and that many people are less informed than they once were. Fewer people going to college will not improve that trend. But college isn't offering what it used to in the way of cultural or civic education, and I'm not prepared to single out rural Americans as more ignorant than any other demographic.
I was visiting a remote part of Malawi that was attached to the rest of the world by a couple of tire tracks barely visible in the tall elephant grass.
When I finally reached my destination, I was greeted by the local school headmaster who was eager for discussion of current events, of which he was very current. We had an invigorating conversation.
My takeaway? Curious minds always prevail against ignorance.
I enjoyed reading these questions and reflections, JD. Our shared experience leaves us doubting and disquieted about the direction of higher education and the value of going to college. Higher ed resists needed change, adopts gradually more models and measures of success from service industries, and pulls off the impossible feat of becoming even more wasteful. Whether a four-year BA still offers enough value to be the right choice for rural kids, I can't say. I can say that the value of a college education has declined enough that I do not see it as an automatic decision for my kids, ages 8 and 10, when they finish high school. I am right now wrapping up a stint with an organization whose rhetoric three years ago was about revolutionizing higher ed. It's been heartbreaking to watch how universities and government resisted and then co-opted the organization. This makes me believe that as parents and educators we should focus efforts on parenting and less on changing the system, even though that approach benefits the few and leaves the majority with the same lousy choices. We are better off raising our kids to think expansively about how to move into adulthood, stand independently, and find prosperity. I applaud your cousins and their hard work. I applaud their creativity and freedom of thought, just as I applaud any young person who takes a beat and throws off the blinders of convention so they can think clearly about whether college is the right choice for them and what they want from life.
Love this: "We are better off raising our kids to think expansively about how to move into adulthood, stand independently, and find prosperity."
I tried not to lay it on too thick with the waterslide metaphor, but there are many different ways to define prosperity. One involves frequent moves, promotions, and usually some substantial debt. I don't ever want my children to experience scarcity or poverty, but I think they can make some choices about how to define wealth. Freedom, time, and geographic choice are big factors to consider.
My cousins also have kids, and their choices have narrowed the horizons for their kids in ways that I wouldn't choose. But being debt free, having a family business to fall back on, and learning the ethic of self-reliance while retaining access to a supportive community counts for a great deal, indeed. Pushing college as the superior option can lead to narrower horizons as well.
This answer to your question sounds awful to me, yet I think it's true. I think a college degree is worth it if the college or university is in the highly or more selective category. Then I think it is more likely to be transformative for someone who grew up in rural and non-privileged circumstances.
I agree with you, David. But the days of Bullock putting himself through a selective private college are over. So Rachel (Doctrix Periwinkle) is also right. I mentioned an example in Sam's recent comment thread of a colleague who grew up blue collar (in Philadelphia, not Pittsburgh), earned a PhD from Harvard, and still felt like an outsider, even as an endowed chair. He left academe around the time I did and continues to struggle. He confessed to me privately that he should have been a firefighter and stayed in Philly -- he still hopes to return there eventually.
I would add that a college degree might also be worth it for rural kids if it is affordable. College and graduate school were essentially risk free for me. $10K in loans for undergrad, which I paid off before the interest came due, then zero debt for the MA and PhD. Many young people are now charting a similar course through community college, then transferring to more selective schools for their final two years to cut costs. It's not ideal from an educational standpoint, and it's a nightmare for anyone trying to assess the effectiveness of developmental curricula that almost no one completes in the intended sequence, but it's a necessity now for anyone who can't get the full ride to the Ivy League.
At the risk of growing too windy on the subject, I'd add that college is still worthwhile for young people who have very clear life goals. If they know what they want and are fully invested in chasing those dreams, then even steep financial risk might be worthwhile. The student with any doubts should wait until they are sure.
I think that might be true, but then the student would be much, much less likely to get in to that college in the first place--especially under circumstances that don't end up with the graduate hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.
Thought-provoking, honest, so refreshing to read this. Thank you!
This line resonated deeply with my struggle to “market myself”:
“It’s very hard to lean into personal branding, selling your skills, and translating one job into different terms when you’ve been raised to shoot straight and promise no more than you can give.”
I am glad I went to uni and got my undergrad and post grad degrees, but honestly, if I was a kid now, I don’t think I would go to university. The barriers and costs are so much higher for working class kids today and I’m not sure the rewards are worth it.
Glad it landed, Jackie! I agree -- I don't regret going to college. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have the writing life I do now, wouldn't have my three kids (or at least the same three kids!), and so on. There's no reverse engineering the past, and I wouldn't want to. But I continue to search for ways to align my identity and values with professional life. It's not always an easy calculus.
One thing I didn't mention here, because I was already going on too long, is that college often separates young people from their families and native communities. There's a real cost to that. Indigenous students feel it more keenly, but anyone from a rural area feels something similar: the visceral connection to place, the knowledge that you have neighbors looking out for you. Suburban alienation is not an improvement on that quality of life, even if it allows you to live in a fully finished house.
For many generations, "be all you can be" was the master narrative of success. I think we're seeing a shift toward valuing family, place, time, and other forms of wealth.
"There's no reverse engineering the past" - so true!
I love the point you've raised about connection to our roots.
A huge part of my motivation to go to uni, get a degree, and build a career was about escaping poverty, building security, and that meant moving away from where I grew up. The story of poor working class kids "getting out" was told as a hero story, dangled as an aspirational carrot.
But there is a cost when we no longer belong to the communities that helped shape us. You've set me thinking...
I'd love to read more of your thoughts on this - perhaps a future essay sometime?
Sure! I'll probably circle back to this topic, since my parents are thinking about what to do with their property and I'm thinking about whether/how I might retire there.
If you're new to my series, this essay from last summer might hit close to the mark?
I'm also curious about how you feel about your home community as a woman. Sometimes the roles are more prescribed in those places, and safety concerns are more pronounced. I know women who embrace life in rural places anyway, but there's no denying the different calculus that goes into solo wilderness travel for women (the whole man or bear debate). And I think part of my fondness for my home community comes from a default setting that privileges my conventional masculinity. I can pass, without trying, as a working class man in a working class town. My conservative family is much more understanding of my divorce than they'd likely be if I were female. And so on. Any of that ring true for you?
My rural relatives were always taking classes at the local Junior College. And it was thrilling for them. They loved to read. My mom was the one who got out, and she did have a better life. There are a lot of dead ends in that place. They were really poor.
But the education they did acquire made their lives better, even though their lives were so hard. When my grandma was a nurse's aid and worked with the elderly, she would be thrilled to have an educated client to talk to--and she would do fun things with them, like record them reciting Poe's 'The Raven.'
My grandma wrote beautiful poetry. I wish she'd had a chance to go to college.
So it certainly depends, right? Rural people aren't innately different. Some of them will be more inclined to education. They should have the chance.
Thanks for another thought provoking piece. I'm always glad when I take the time to read your stuff. Keep doing what you're doing. Your voice is very important.
Yes but we need to make it more affordable/free via tax monies. The Arts and Humanities will be what keeps humans from totally fragmenting/breaking down once AI takes half of all jobs in 10-15 years.
I was wondering what some of the causal links were (if any) -- I'm sure "rural" is used in the essay to capture a wider meaning than "an area of low density, and agricultural or forest land", but I'm not sure what that is. Because that cannot be a causal link to "you’ve been raised to shoot straight and promise no more than you can give." I have not had the benefit of living in a rural area, but would like to think my parents and grand parents have imparted the same principles. And likewise for many other people who happen to have been raised in high density/urban areas.
A few other stray thoughts:
One wishes your cousins much continued success. Are the examples meant to show that it is possible to make a good life without college? That there should be more people who have the opportunities and make the choices that your cousins made, and that currently such opportunities are scarce? That people in high density areas should emulate this? That various employments that have some education or licensing requirements ought not to have them? What would a "good" answer from Governor Bullock have been?
I am partial to higher education (the institutions of higher learning are the crown jewels of the United States, an engine of innovation, and a magnet for the world's talent), and the enlightenment ideal is all humans have the capacity for free inquiry. On a more practical level, getting a university education does not preclude a career in construction or in logging, say, but without one how are you even going to discover you have an interest in medicine or the law or philosophy?
Lots of good questions! Thanks for reading. I'm speaking in this essay most specifically to my own experience and that of my family in rural Montana. You're quite right that there are commonalities between rural and urban cultures. The differences I highlight here are class differences rather than geographic ones (and I don't think I imply or explicitly state anything about urban experience). But there are always going to be limits to any general application of personal experience, and I've tried to be sensitive to that here.
There are no intended "shoulds" in this essay; even the one in the title is framed as a question. If anything, the dominant storyline for many generations has been that kids should go to college, that they're settling for a diminished future if they don't. That might have been true when college was affordable. The high financial stakes and other tradeoffs, like geographic displacement, make that a different value proposition for low income families now. I intend only to show that my family members have chosen to define freedom, happiness, and growth differently, and that the stress and uncertainty of paying off substantial loans might not have led to a better result for them. In that case, the rural/urban divide is rather stark, because rural areas offer more opportunities for subsistence living, and your net worth on paper is not always a good measure of your quality of life. That is less true in urban areas where real estate is more expensive and hunting, foraging, and gardening are less available.
What would a "good" answer from Gov. Bullock have been? If I knew, perhaps I would be Governor! There are many intersecting challenges in a community like that. One of them is the decline of industries like timber and mining, which once provided economic security for many families. Nothing has been done that I know of to help middle-aged laborers transition to other fields. Certainly broadband would be a boon for schools, but very few students from that high school consider college anymore. So the solutions for young people would include pathways into internships, apprenticeships, or even incubators for developing entrepreneurs. A young person with a business idea could likely leverage broadband effectively. But the infrastructure doesn't accomplish much if people don't have the skills or training to use it. How much of this is the individual's responsibility versus the state's is a fair question, but the policy and market changes that took away the economic lifelines were bigger than the individuals they affected, so I think the solutions would have to be bigger than personal responsibility, as well.
We agree about the past legacy of higher education in America. It's possible that many American universities remain magnets for talent, but there are deep systematic flaws with higher ed now. I've addressed many of those concerns in previous essays, so won't belabor them here except to reiterate that the benefits in self-realization that have typically come from liberal arts education are only viable and practical if they are affordable. I completely agree with you in principle and was fortunate to have the chance to explore my interests widely as an undergraduate. But I suffered no financial price for that journey, even though my family was poor, and was debt free when I finished my PhD. My story is not possible now, hence this essay.
My father (though he had a degree) had his first job with the CCC in the depths of the depression. My own feeling, even though I have 3 graduate degrees (plus an "All but dissertation") is that it isn't the degree itself that is needed. What IS needed is that our people, rural or otherwise, need an education in certain "core" --to use a phrase shamed by the Extremes--basics. Not "readin'writin'rithmatic" though reading would be useful 🙄 But basic civics--how the government works; critical thinking and the ability to spot propaganda, and world history taught not as a series of dates but as a series of PROBLEMS and how societies dealt with them for good or ill, (along with basics of philosophy with the same emphasis). Basically a core of thinking skills and the meat to practice them on.
My solution involves a requirement of National Service for everyone. It can be the military, social projects, interning for approved non-profits (not religious ones), any number of things that could benefit society. PART of that would be the education I describe. One could "pass out" of that part if one could pass the final test before entering, but if you do you could still take humanities style electives which would solidify the core essentials.
THEN if you wanted you could go get a degree in STEM or Business, which is what way too many people seem to be doing now. A young relative has just finished her first year of art school--a prestigious one, and I am happy for her. But I looked at the curriculum. The ONLY history required is Art History (which does have the advantage of making you sense the difference between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance) and no requirements that focus on critical thinking. She is smart enough to have picked up a lot of that at her excellent high school. And if AI doesn't beat her up, she's developing a useful skill. But it is indicative of what too narrow an education one can get with that a degree.
From the dates you cite, it sounds like you hit PMLA in the heights--or depths--of critical theory. I escaped that by a couple of years in my doctoral program (and close analyses of poems did wonders for my ability to analyze cases in law school). The decline in the intelligibility of scholarship in English studies was faster than the decline of this society into nascent fascism. I'm pretty sure that burp of obfuscation has died down by now. I hope.
Yes, critical theory ruled the roost when I was in grad school. Still does, I think? I've seen no signs that it's abated. It had not by my departure from academe in 2021. The Grievance Studies hoax happened in 2019.
I also like your idea about national service. Americorps is one example of that now, but of course it's not mandatory. People from all economic backgrounds served in the two world wars, and the cultural impact was unifying.
I went back on a senior auditor program at the U and sat in on a bunch of English courses. They were undergrad. There wasn’t much emphasis on Theory (always pronounced portentously) in those courses. One of the professors had been a very young associate when I was just getting ready to switch to law. I liked her classes in the recent program; she didn’t have much nice to say about Theory. I think she was relieved that she was finally able to shed it. She was also close enough to emeritus that she didn’t have to publish.
Excellent article. The 100% problem with enrollment problems is cost. That's it. It's not wokeism, location. It's all cost. When double-income friends of mine who make $150K+ a year can barely afford to send two of their kids to college at the same time, there's a problem. Not everyone needs to go to college, but to make it more accessible it needs to be cheaper. Dorms should be free, maybe pay for food. At state colleges the land is state land, it is FREE. Students should live free in dorms. Honestly, I think all junior colleges and state colleges and universities should be free to state residents. If they want Taj Mahal fitness facilities, they can pay extra. If they want super computers, they can pay for those, too. When I was in college it was dirt cheap and opened doors for many, who today couldn't attend. I see study after study by academicians wondering about enrollment problems. It's the cost, that's all it is. Oh yeah, eliminate half or more of administrative bloat, too.
Thank you, Tim. I largely agree -- reducing cost would solve a great deal. Love your idea of free dorms and optional upscaling for certain students. Roughing it was a point of pride during my college days, too.
The one qualification I'd make is that cost has enabled an anti-intellectual narrative that would take some time to dismantle, even if costs came down tomorrow. And I think the talent drain among faculty, the systemic shifts away from tenure and toward contingent labor, and all of the other byproducts of a scarcity mindset won't be remedied overnight. A lot of damage has been done, and it's always easier to tear down than to rebuild.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that lowering cost is the single most important factor. Nearly every discipline looks different as an investment if the risk is lower.
I was a poor reservation Indian kid who started college intending to become pediatrician and then found my way to poetry and fiction. At no point whatsoever did I think of myself as a political activist. Over six years of college, I read hundreds of books of fiction and poetry. That's why I was in college. To read my way through as much of the world as I could and to have professors point me toward the most valuable books. It was all about the books.
That was true for me, too, to a different degree. Do you think that is still how a young Sherman Alexie would experience college today?
I think I would be rebelling against my student writer peers.
Hahaha! That I would pay to see... Sherman Alexie in the Writing Center. 😂 Too bad you never were (to my knowledge) a professor. Your parodies of assessment, accreditation, and strategic planning would be, I'm sure, rib-splitting.
I've been a guest professor. And a rowdy one. I'm sure I would be escorted out of class these days for my blasphemy.
Joshua, what a beautiful piece this is, and I love that video at the end. My father would have agreed with you - in his case, he grew up with a single mother among the urban poor in Denver (although my grandmother was escaping from the farm of her immigrant Norwegian family in South Dakota). My dad got through Denver University on a full scholarship and managed to get a pol-sci Ph.D. with grants and a stint in the military. He was meant to be an academic, and his education meant everything to him, but it’s also true that he always felt like an outsider among the Ivy elite.
He drilled into me the problem of college debt, saying he’d get me through my BA if I could cover some of the costs with a scholarship (I did, although I don’t think that’s possible now), but for grad school, I was on my own. A few years later, I managed that by getting my employer to cover my tuition at a state university while I was working.
I say all this to highlight the motivation required if you don’t come from a privileged background. Probably my father’s most consequential achievement as an academic was to found and grow an “accelerated” degree program for adult students at his California state university. He loved those students, as do I the adult students I teach.
I agree that not everyone needs a college degree to thrive and make their way financially. There are many ways to educate yourself. But the one thing college courses will give you is a framework for how to learn, especially when it comes to putting in the effort to become a deep reader and writer. The growth I’ve seen in students when they’re ready to put in the time - and have affordable options - makes me think my father’s legacy lives on.
Thank you, Martha! I completely agree with you. I ran a workshop for a local writers club recently and loved it. The average age was over 50. Not a yawn in the crowd, and many stayed after to chat. I'll be teaching a course pro bono for the Lifelong Learning Institute at Penn State this fall (average age probably 60+). My parents both completed college degrees in their 50s, and I'm sure they were a delight to mentor.
You're right that our paths (and Bullock's) aren't feasible anymore. I began to see this near the end of my tenure at a private college in Iowa. Even when the college ditched the high sticker price and high discount model and adjusted tuition to the "real" price of about $16K/year (with little additional financial aid), I began to wonder if the debt was worth it for first-gen students. $40-60K in loans is still a lot for a young person who doesn't have family help.
I had the benefit of affordable tuition, a very generous student requisition program that gave me a good summer job with the Forest Service in my hometown (so I could live at home and save everything), Pell Grants, and other financial aid. I was debt free by the time I finished my MA. We'll continue to see class divisions widen if the affordability gap isn't addressed. Young people shouldn't have to mortgage their freedom for opportunity.
Absolutely, Joshua. I have been thinking a lot about how to set up an affordable course of writing lessons in a non-academic setting (I’ll probably start on Substack). Whatever we say about the inadequacies of online teaching, it allows students from all over the country and world to sign in for classes. These days, I find that the majority of my students are millennials, coming back to school for a variety of reasons, and not all of them are getting degrees. They hearten me in the midst of our very broken model for higher education.
My Dad, who taught literature at UC Davis, is SO HAPPY I will be teaching at a community college in the fall. He liked his students at Davis but he LOVED his students at Yuba CC.
Wow, just wow. I have struggled with the same thoughts you summarized so perfectly for as long as I can remember.
I read Tara Westover’s book several times and I came away thinking she could not have achieved what she achieved without all of those amazing people who were her advocates. I don’t think they received enough credit for carrying her along when she wanted to give up. Not many kids get that kind of advocacy. Few are ever told they are pure gold. She now talks about the gulf of opportunity that exists between many rural kids and those fortunate few who make it to the Ivy Leagues and I hope she continues to pursue solutions to that problem.
In one passage where she is with a friend as they share tea with Jordanian Bedouins, she marvels at how her education took her from her father’s junkyard and prepared her for just such a moment. Education, she muses, is the key to allow us to bridge cultures and feel at home in the world, completely comfortable wherever fate takes us.
I did not have an opportunity to study at Harvard or Cambridge. In fact, I dropped out of college and spent most of my adult life living and working abroad. I realize now it was the most demanding and exhaustive education one could ever undertake. When I finally returned to finish my college studies, I found it underwhelming. It seemed more like a rite of passage than a preparation to take on the world and in too many cases, the world of a deeply indebted graduate will be behind the counter of a Starbucks, instead of drinking tea in the Jordanian desert. But we do have that piece of parchment that establishes that we are special.
It’s time to rethink what we call education. At one time it was a way to train professionals, but also a way to keep the elite elite. The reality now is that vast swathes of our people achieve far below their potential and we are all poorer because of it. How can we structurally advocate for our young people in a way that allows many more to reach their full potential? I don’t know. I would like to know.
A lovely contribution -- thank you. Love this bit especially: "I read Tara Westover’s book several times and I came away thinking she could not have achieved what she achieved without all of those amazing people who were her advocates. I don’t think they received enough credit for carrying her along when she wanted to give up. Not many kids get that kind of advocacy."
Exactly right. The Jordanian scene would not have happened without her advocates. It is such an unnerving part of the narrative, that her BYU mentor had to overrule whatever body initially excluded her from the Cambridge trip, and then her Cambridge mentor just opened the door to Harvard (and took care of the money part). It's a glimpse of how things work behind the meritocratic facades. And it's why the college degree is no guarantee of success, especially for first-gen students who might have no advocates once they graduate. It makes me curious about Westover's process to finding an agent, whether she ground away at over-the-transom queries or whether (as I suspect) this was another opportunity that opened as a result of making it into Harvard? So some of those gifts keep on giving, but the seemingly arbitrary nature of her key turning points is more troubling than affirming when one thinks about rural kids writ large.
"How can we structurally advocate for our young people in a way that allows many more to reach their full potential? I don’t know. I would like to know." Me, too. All I know is that the difference maker for me was a superb public education. I think any reasonable answer starts with K-12.
I read somewhere on the web how she wrote the book, which required skills very different from her years of academic writing, by reading everything she could find about writing a memoir. I also remember something she mentioned about joining a writing group who were pretty harsh on her first draft. Apparently she learned quickly, because her final product is not only a compelling story, but also beautifully crafted. She wrote a masterpiece.
Indeed she did!
I agree. In our case, my wife, who completed her elementary ed degree at a small college in western Zimbabwe convinced me that we should homeschool and we never looked back. During our ten years in Maryland, when I was traveling around the world for 200-250 days a year, it gave our kids a sense of stability. They were members of homeschool groups who met weekly for field trips and special events.
When they were tweens, we uprooted and moved to one of the FSU ‘stans where they learned a couple of languages amazingly fast and were completely comfortable interacting with our international staff from Georgia, Ukraine, Russia, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Azerbaijan, Angola, and even the USA.
Kids are amazingly resilient and open to new experiences. We lived on a culdesach near the presidential dacha that was heavily guarded. My son quickly made friends with the guards and I remember one evening during the ancient Novruz holiday, he convinced the guards to build a fire so they all could jump through it and destroy whatever demons were following them.
When we returned, both went off to uni, where my daughter, born in Zimbabwe, followed her dream of becoming a pediatric speech therapist and finishing her graduate degree.
My 6’9” son, born in Malawi, somehow managed to land a full scholarship at a university in Alberta, where he graduated debt-free, got married, secured permanent residence status and worked as a safety trainer. He now owns his own company and is doing well. His sister now is the administrator of the clinic where she works and also continues to work with her “little nuggets.”
While our solution is not for everyone, it worked for us. There was a time when my son questioned the value of a degree. I told him to plow through it, get as much out of school as he could, and when he graduated, he’d have that magic piece of parchment. Sometimes one needs to pay the price to get a foot in the door.
For my kids, my wife and I were their advocates, but a lot of other good people pitched in and helped. We were blessed.
But that doesn’t answer my question about how all kids can live their dreams. In the meantime, I do my best to advocate for kids in our little mountain community. It really isn’t a place with many opportunities for them, but they do love to hear about things they haven’t thought about and to get encouragement to stretch their wings. Every kid deserves advocates.
A powerful story! I wrote about homeschool earlier this year, and the response has changed my thinking somewhat. I still believe the answer for enabling the most kids to live their dreams is investing in public K-12. But that view is shaped by living in two buoyant communities with excellent school systems, where my kids can reach their full potential while contributing to their peers. It's the best of the commons. I am quite aware that if our public system were not so good -- if we lived in my hometown, for instance -- I would be looking to maximize opportunity for my kids without thinking as much about the commons.
I needed advocates in a public school because no one in my family had been to college.
Why not college? College opens many doors.
I’m certainly not anti-college, but in many cases the benefit doesn’t justify the cost, especially if it involves long-term indebtedness. Too many graduates in recent years end up in debt and without marketable skills. Not everybody with a PhD will find themselves on a tenure track. Learning skilled trades also opens many doors.
I agree. However, I have met some very brilliant people who were machinists or carpenters who later got degrees. I used to babysit for a guy who was a farmer for 10 years and quit to become a scientist.
It’s always been one of the great things about America that this is possible.
The opposite is also true. I know a lot of people who become jack of all trades and I think the life flexibility is partly due to the college education—like maybe they will start off work in tech or doing various skill based jobs even if not their degree but then they can more easily shift gears to teaching, public relations, fundraising or other jobs later where the college degree is very useful—so if people have this opportunity to do it, it can be of lifelong benefit, even if the path is not straight. My handyman has a PhD in theology! He has no regrets about his education.
I was going to reply in a similar direction. I have a young friend who paid his tuition for a two year diesel mechanic course that included a full set of SnapOn tools by working part time at Home Depot and then went straight into a lucrative job immediately upon graduation. His dream is to get an English degree in his spare time. I have another young friend who did a two year auto body course and she now specializes is restoring old cars simply for the joy of it. It is what she loves.
When I was a kid working on a summer farm job, I met the farmer next door who was a Rhodes scholar. A year or so later, I met a carpenter working in a very small town in southern Idaho who had a PhD in philosophy from Notre Dame. When we talked about it, he told me he never found a job as a philosopher, but at least he understood why! And I have a close friend from Georgia (Tbilisi, not Atlanta) who has a degree in international law, but who now drives an eighteen wheeler with her husband.
Finally, one of my favorite writers is William Gay, who didn't become a published writer until late in his career as a carpenter and drywall installer.
That’s excellent!
I'd have to write another (long) essay to respond on all the issues you raise so compellingly, Josh. (I won't) But you're raising all the right compelling questions., as always, in a way not that many people do on these subjects. The only truly compelling answer, I suspect you agree, from what I know, is a dramatic re-conception of how higher education is offered in this country.
Thanks, Jay -- indeed, we have covered this in some length elsewhere. But trying to offer a unique spin this time around.
And this take is important. As I read, I thought about my own original choices and challenges, the financial ones and the absence of any kind of advantageous connections, but the difference in time period and, to your point, of urban versus rural complicated the considerations beyond any simple comment.
Grew up in a small town in a trailer. I’m grateful I could go to school — it was far cheaper in the 80s. It was valuable and life-changing even though I’m still poor. Education matters for reasons that have little to do with money or careers.
Thanks, Michelle! I'm glad you found a way into the wide world. That was transformative for me, as well. If college were as affordable now as it was when we attended, I'd be writing a different essay.
I’m curious why you specifically excluded faith based nonprofits.
During my career in international humanitarian assistance, many of the most effective international organizations were faith based. Many had indigenous faith based organizations they partnered with, and operations research I took part in consistently showed higher levels of sustainability when projects were partnered with local faith based groups. For instance, in Zambia, we learned that women who were members of a local faith based community service organization were more likely to continue project interventions after the end of project funding and would continue as volunteers much longer than other groups.
I also did some preliminary research for a mother-child health project in Malawi (a USAID funded Child Survival grant) to find areas that were most underserved and had the highest infant and maternal mortality rates. I found that the consistently highest rates of female literacy (an excellent proxy indicator for child mortality), and lowest maternal and under 5 mortality was in areas where Scottish missionaries established mission schools and hospitals during the early 20th century. The highest maternal and child mortality rates, as well as lowest female literacy rates, were at the southern end of Lake Malawi and in the Lower Shire River valley where missionary groups were not as active.
A close friend did his doctoral research in Zambia on the phenomenon of why members in faith communities enjoyed significantly higher income growth and social mobility than those in his control group.
I understand that there is often a knee jerk reaction against any kind of religious involvement in civil society building because of the US cultural bias against faith based groups, but in my opinion, those groups often produce better outcomes and better sustainability than some of their counterpart organizations. Why would excluding national service members from experiencing exceptional performance and best practices be a good thing?
Sorry I lost track of this comment. I don't know enough about faith-based groups abroad, but some of the distrust has been deserved, given the saviorism and colonial mentality that can coincide with missionary efforts. At the same time, I'm aware that colonialism has already left its impact, and that cultures have grown up with hybridity, and that there can be real reciprocity with well managed groups.
But you have more expertise in this area than I. If I consciously excluded faith-based nonprofits (not sure that I did), it could have been because I was raised Pentecostal and have good reasons, based on that background, to be suspicious of evangelical groups. That is also a personal bias that might not be accurate or consistent with your experience. There are a lot of qualifiers necessary in this space, I think.
I was responding to another reader's comment about not including faith based organizations.
During my years in Africa, and especially in post-colonial Southern Africa, I often heard colonial settlers complain about “the uppity ideas” mission schools taught their students. Well before the 1883-85 Berlin Conference where Africa was hacked into colonial bite-size chunks, missionaries were busy building clinics and schools.
In pre-Malawi Nyasaland, an African American missionary advocated for indigenous self-rule in the early 1920s. Also in Malawi, mission hospitals were important sources of healthcare. One hospital I visited often, Malamulo Hospital, trained nurses, midwives, and physician assistants who staff the (also mission supported) rural clinics. The hospital led the fight against Hansen’s Disease in the Lower Shire Valley, and was also a research center for tropical diseases.
In Zambia and Zimbabwe, many if not most of the early post independence governments were staffed by mission school graduates.
Most missionaries I met over the years were political agnostics and were most concerned about the wellbeing of people in the countries where they served. The only faith based relief agency I refused to work with was Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse, because of the insistence that any resources they provided for our programs were tied to proselytizing efforts. I gave them a hard pass.
"the insistence that any resources they provided for our programs were tied to proselytizing efforts"
This is indeed the distinguishing factor and the reason for knee-jerk distrust. I take your word for the rest, having no direct knowledge or expertise!
But honestly, I only saw it from that one Christian organization. It was an ongoing problem in Sudan with local non Christian faith based organizations.
Also, several coalition governments pushed current politically correct ideologies in the Middle East that were especially inappropriate. I watched a video showing a young British woman teaching burka—clad Iraqi women about modern art. As she earnestly tried to explain Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountains” installation, actually nothing more a wall mounted urinal, the Iraqi women were first shocked, then nodded their heads disapprovingly toward one another. One observer said that at that moment, he knew the West had lost the battle for hearts and minds in the Middle East.
Apparently our new beliefs are less worthy than our ancient beliefs.
So: does this explain why so many rural Americans are ill-informed about contemporary events?
Well, David, a lot of terms in that sentence would require definition. Most of my friends in Montana follow the same news feeds that other Americans do. And they self-sort in the same ways. Some read the NY Times. Others read the Epoch Times or watch FOX. So I'm not sure there are any blanket statements to be made.
While I agree with your general assumption, that college education implies some curiosity about current events and cultural affairs, I don't think that's necessarily true anymore, either. Colleges are rapidly remaking themselves in the image of industry. History, foreign languages, literature, arts, political science -- all of the disciplines that cultivate literacy about current events -- are on the chopping block. So you could make the argument that many students just become more widely read in their pre-existing affinity group and emerge more equipped for activism than for open-minded citizenship. Not sure if you've read much about the campus protests, but the zero sum reasoning about Israel and Palestine doesn't reveal a better-informed college population, necessarily.
Anyway, long way of saying that it's complicated. I believe that the decline of public K-12 and college is a net negative and that many people are less informed than they once were. Fewer people going to college will not improve that trend. But college isn't offering what it used to in the way of cultural or civic education, and I'm not prepared to single out rural Americans as more ignorant than any other demographic.
I was visiting a remote part of Malawi that was attached to the rest of the world by a couple of tire tracks barely visible in the tall elephant grass.
When I finally reached my destination, I was greeted by the local school headmaster who was eager for discussion of current events, of which he was very current. We had an invigorating conversation.
My takeaway? Curious minds always prevail against ignorance.
Obviously, this thing can't be settled by (stereotypically) suggesting rural people are know-nothing idiots- since that's not entirely true.
Perhaps I misunderstood your question?
I enjoyed reading these questions and reflections, JD. Our shared experience leaves us doubting and disquieted about the direction of higher education and the value of going to college. Higher ed resists needed change, adopts gradually more models and measures of success from service industries, and pulls off the impossible feat of becoming even more wasteful. Whether a four-year BA still offers enough value to be the right choice for rural kids, I can't say. I can say that the value of a college education has declined enough that I do not see it as an automatic decision for my kids, ages 8 and 10, when they finish high school. I am right now wrapping up a stint with an organization whose rhetoric three years ago was about revolutionizing higher ed. It's been heartbreaking to watch how universities and government resisted and then co-opted the organization. This makes me believe that as parents and educators we should focus efforts on parenting and less on changing the system, even though that approach benefits the few and leaves the majority with the same lousy choices. We are better off raising our kids to think expansively about how to move into adulthood, stand independently, and find prosperity. I applaud your cousins and their hard work. I applaud their creativity and freedom of thought, just as I applaud any young person who takes a beat and throws off the blinders of convention so they can think clearly about whether college is the right choice for them and what they want from life.
Love this: "We are better off raising our kids to think expansively about how to move into adulthood, stand independently, and find prosperity."
I tried not to lay it on too thick with the waterslide metaphor, but there are many different ways to define prosperity. One involves frequent moves, promotions, and usually some substantial debt. I don't ever want my children to experience scarcity or poverty, but I think they can make some choices about how to define wealth. Freedom, time, and geographic choice are big factors to consider.
My cousins also have kids, and their choices have narrowed the horizons for their kids in ways that I wouldn't choose. But being debt free, having a family business to fall back on, and learning the ethic of self-reliance while retaining access to a supportive community counts for a great deal, indeed. Pushing college as the superior option can lead to narrower horizons as well.
This answer to your question sounds awful to me, yet I think it's true. I think a college degree is worth it if the college or university is in the highly or more selective category. Then I think it is more likely to be transformative for someone who grew up in rural and non-privileged circumstances.
I agree with you, David. But the days of Bullock putting himself through a selective private college are over. So Rachel (Doctrix Periwinkle) is also right. I mentioned an example in Sam's recent comment thread of a colleague who grew up blue collar (in Philadelphia, not Pittsburgh), earned a PhD from Harvard, and still felt like an outsider, even as an endowed chair. He left academe around the time I did and continues to struggle. He confessed to me privately that he should have been a firefighter and stayed in Philly -- he still hopes to return there eventually.
I would add that a college degree might also be worth it for rural kids if it is affordable. College and graduate school were essentially risk free for me. $10K in loans for undergrad, which I paid off before the interest came due, then zero debt for the MA and PhD. Many young people are now charting a similar course through community college, then transferring to more selective schools for their final two years to cut costs. It's not ideal from an educational standpoint, and it's a nightmare for anyone trying to assess the effectiveness of developmental curricula that almost no one completes in the intended sequence, but it's a necessity now for anyone who can't get the full ride to the Ivy League.
At the risk of growing too windy on the subject, I'd add that college is still worthwhile for young people who have very clear life goals. If they know what they want and are fully invested in chasing those dreams, then even steep financial risk might be worthwhile. The student with any doubts should wait until they are sure.
I think that might be true, but then the student would be much, much less likely to get in to that college in the first place--especially under circumstances that don't end up with the graduate hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.
Thought-provoking, honest, so refreshing to read this. Thank you!
This line resonated deeply with my struggle to “market myself”:
“It’s very hard to lean into personal branding, selling your skills, and translating one job into different terms when you’ve been raised to shoot straight and promise no more than you can give.”
I am glad I went to uni and got my undergrad and post grad degrees, but honestly, if I was a kid now, I don’t think I would go to university. The barriers and costs are so much higher for working class kids today and I’m not sure the rewards are worth it.
Glad it landed, Jackie! I agree -- I don't regret going to college. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have the writing life I do now, wouldn't have my three kids (or at least the same three kids!), and so on. There's no reverse engineering the past, and I wouldn't want to. But I continue to search for ways to align my identity and values with professional life. It's not always an easy calculus.
One thing I didn't mention here, because I was already going on too long, is that college often separates young people from their families and native communities. There's a real cost to that. Indigenous students feel it more keenly, but anyone from a rural area feels something similar: the visceral connection to place, the knowledge that you have neighbors looking out for you. Suburban alienation is not an improvement on that quality of life, even if it allows you to live in a fully finished house.
For many generations, "be all you can be" was the master narrative of success. I think we're seeing a shift toward valuing family, place, time, and other forms of wealth.
"There's no reverse engineering the past" - so true!
I love the point you've raised about connection to our roots.
A huge part of my motivation to go to uni, get a degree, and build a career was about escaping poverty, building security, and that meant moving away from where I grew up. The story of poor working class kids "getting out" was told as a hero story, dangled as an aspirational carrot.
But there is a cost when we no longer belong to the communities that helped shape us. You've set me thinking...
I'd love to read more of your thoughts on this - perhaps a future essay sometime?
Sure! I'll probably circle back to this topic, since my parents are thinking about what to do with their property and I'm thinking about whether/how I might retire there.
If you're new to my series, this essay from last summer might hit close to the mark?
https://joshuadolezal.substack.com/p/montana-lost-cause-or-last-best-place
I'm also curious about how you feel about your home community as a woman. Sometimes the roles are more prescribed in those places, and safety concerns are more pronounced. I know women who embrace life in rural places anyway, but there's no denying the different calculus that goes into solo wilderness travel for women (the whole man or bear debate). And I think part of my fondness for my home community comes from a default setting that privileges my conventional masculinity. I can pass, without trying, as a working class man in a working class town. My conservative family is much more understanding of my divorce than they'd likely be if I were female. And so on. Any of that ring true for you?
My rural relatives were always taking classes at the local Junior College. And it was thrilling for them. They loved to read. My mom was the one who got out, and she did have a better life. There are a lot of dead ends in that place. They were really poor.
But the education they did acquire made their lives better, even though their lives were so hard. When my grandma was a nurse's aid and worked with the elderly, she would be thrilled to have an educated client to talk to--and she would do fun things with them, like record them reciting Poe's 'The Raven.'
My grandma wrote beautiful poetry. I wish she'd had a chance to go to college.
So it certainly depends, right? Rural people aren't innately different. Some of them will be more inclined to education. They should have the chance.
All of this was true for me, and as I say above, the Gorka principle only holds if college is affordable.
Thanks for another thought provoking piece. I'm always glad when I take the time to read your stuff. Keep doing what you're doing. Your voice is very important.
Thanks for reading!
Yes but we need to make it more affordable/free via tax monies. The Arts and Humanities will be what keeps humans from totally fragmenting/breaking down once AI takes half of all jobs in 10-15 years.
Completely agree. I'd have written a very different essay if a college degree didn't require such financial risk.
Interesting read, thank you!
I was wondering what some of the causal links were (if any) -- I'm sure "rural" is used in the essay to capture a wider meaning than "an area of low density, and agricultural or forest land", but I'm not sure what that is. Because that cannot be a causal link to "you’ve been raised to shoot straight and promise no more than you can give." I have not had the benefit of living in a rural area, but would like to think my parents and grand parents have imparted the same principles. And likewise for many other people who happen to have been raised in high density/urban areas.
A few other stray thoughts:
One wishes your cousins much continued success. Are the examples meant to show that it is possible to make a good life without college? That there should be more people who have the opportunities and make the choices that your cousins made, and that currently such opportunities are scarce? That people in high density areas should emulate this? That various employments that have some education or licensing requirements ought not to have them? What would a "good" answer from Governor Bullock have been?
I am partial to higher education (the institutions of higher learning are the crown jewels of the United States, an engine of innovation, and a magnet for the world's talent), and the enlightenment ideal is all humans have the capacity for free inquiry. On a more practical level, getting a university education does not preclude a career in construction or in logging, say, but without one how are you even going to discover you have an interest in medicine or the law or philosophy?
Lots of good questions! Thanks for reading. I'm speaking in this essay most specifically to my own experience and that of my family in rural Montana. You're quite right that there are commonalities between rural and urban cultures. The differences I highlight here are class differences rather than geographic ones (and I don't think I imply or explicitly state anything about urban experience). But there are always going to be limits to any general application of personal experience, and I've tried to be sensitive to that here.
There are no intended "shoulds" in this essay; even the one in the title is framed as a question. If anything, the dominant storyline for many generations has been that kids should go to college, that they're settling for a diminished future if they don't. That might have been true when college was affordable. The high financial stakes and other tradeoffs, like geographic displacement, make that a different value proposition for low income families now. I intend only to show that my family members have chosen to define freedom, happiness, and growth differently, and that the stress and uncertainty of paying off substantial loans might not have led to a better result for them. In that case, the rural/urban divide is rather stark, because rural areas offer more opportunities for subsistence living, and your net worth on paper is not always a good measure of your quality of life. That is less true in urban areas where real estate is more expensive and hunting, foraging, and gardening are less available.
What would a "good" answer from Gov. Bullock have been? If I knew, perhaps I would be Governor! There are many intersecting challenges in a community like that. One of them is the decline of industries like timber and mining, which once provided economic security for many families. Nothing has been done that I know of to help middle-aged laborers transition to other fields. Certainly broadband would be a boon for schools, but very few students from that high school consider college anymore. So the solutions for young people would include pathways into internships, apprenticeships, or even incubators for developing entrepreneurs. A young person with a business idea could likely leverage broadband effectively. But the infrastructure doesn't accomplish much if people don't have the skills or training to use it. How much of this is the individual's responsibility versus the state's is a fair question, but the policy and market changes that took away the economic lifelines were bigger than the individuals they affected, so I think the solutions would have to be bigger than personal responsibility, as well.
We agree about the past legacy of higher education in America. It's possible that many American universities remain magnets for talent, but there are deep systematic flaws with higher ed now. I've addressed many of those concerns in previous essays, so won't belabor them here except to reiterate that the benefits in self-realization that have typically come from liberal arts education are only viable and practical if they are affordable. I completely agree with you in principle and was fortunate to have the chance to explore my interests widely as an undergraduate. But I suffered no financial price for that journey, even though my family was poor, and was debt free when I finished my PhD. My story is not possible now, hence this essay.
My father (though he had a degree) had his first job with the CCC in the depths of the depression. My own feeling, even though I have 3 graduate degrees (plus an "All but dissertation") is that it isn't the degree itself that is needed. What IS needed is that our people, rural or otherwise, need an education in certain "core" --to use a phrase shamed by the Extremes--basics. Not "readin'writin'rithmatic" though reading would be useful 🙄 But basic civics--how the government works; critical thinking and the ability to spot propaganda, and world history taught not as a series of dates but as a series of PROBLEMS and how societies dealt with them for good or ill, (along with basics of philosophy with the same emphasis). Basically a core of thinking skills and the meat to practice them on.
My solution involves a requirement of National Service for everyone. It can be the military, social projects, interning for approved non-profits (not religious ones), any number of things that could benefit society. PART of that would be the education I describe. One could "pass out" of that part if one could pass the final test before entering, but if you do you could still take humanities style electives which would solidify the core essentials.
THEN if you wanted you could go get a degree in STEM or Business, which is what way too many people seem to be doing now. A young relative has just finished her first year of art school--a prestigious one, and I am happy for her. But I looked at the curriculum. The ONLY history required is Art History (which does have the advantage of making you sense the difference between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance) and no requirements that focus on critical thinking. She is smart enough to have picked up a lot of that at her excellent high school. And if AI doesn't beat her up, she's developing a useful skill. But it is indicative of what too narrow an education one can get with that a degree.
From the dates you cite, it sounds like you hit PMLA in the heights--or depths--of critical theory. I escaped that by a couple of years in my doctoral program (and close analyses of poems did wonders for my ability to analyze cases in law school). The decline in the intelligibility of scholarship in English studies was faster than the decline of this society into nascent fascism. I'm pretty sure that burp of obfuscation has died down by now. I hope.
Yes, critical theory ruled the roost when I was in grad school. Still does, I think? I've seen no signs that it's abated. It had not by my departure from academe in 2021. The Grievance Studies hoax happened in 2019.
I also like your idea about national service. Americorps is one example of that now, but of course it's not mandatory. People from all economic backgrounds served in the two world wars, and the cultural impact was unifying.
I went back on a senior auditor program at the U and sat in on a bunch of English courses. They were undergrad. There wasn’t much emphasis on Theory (always pronounced portentously) in those courses. One of the professors had been a very young associate when I was just getting ready to switch to law. I liked her classes in the recent program; she didn’t have much nice to say about Theory. I think she was relieved that she was finally able to shed it. She was also close enough to emeritus that she didn’t have to publish.
Excellent article. The 100% problem with enrollment problems is cost. That's it. It's not wokeism, location. It's all cost. When double-income friends of mine who make $150K+ a year can barely afford to send two of their kids to college at the same time, there's a problem. Not everyone needs to go to college, but to make it more accessible it needs to be cheaper. Dorms should be free, maybe pay for food. At state colleges the land is state land, it is FREE. Students should live free in dorms. Honestly, I think all junior colleges and state colleges and universities should be free to state residents. If they want Taj Mahal fitness facilities, they can pay extra. If they want super computers, they can pay for those, too. When I was in college it was dirt cheap and opened doors for many, who today couldn't attend. I see study after study by academicians wondering about enrollment problems. It's the cost, that's all it is. Oh yeah, eliminate half or more of administrative bloat, too.
Thank you, Tim. I largely agree -- reducing cost would solve a great deal. Love your idea of free dorms and optional upscaling for certain students. Roughing it was a point of pride during my college days, too.
The one qualification I'd make is that cost has enabled an anti-intellectual narrative that would take some time to dismantle, even if costs came down tomorrow. And I think the talent drain among faculty, the systemic shifts away from tenure and toward contingent labor, and all of the other byproducts of a scarcity mindset won't be remedied overnight. A lot of damage has been done, and it's always easier to tear down than to rebuild.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that lowering cost is the single most important factor. Nearly every discipline looks different as an investment if the risk is lower.