My opinion: He is half right.
Ability varies from student to student and half of the students are below average. Absolutely, and we need to realize this and work with it.
But – I don’t think that too many students are going to college. I think that the world has changed and for many more pursuits high school is simply not enough. Some level of college is no longer for the “gifted” or wealthy – it is becoming necessary.
And he is only half-right on the fourth “truth.” America’s future depends in part on how we educate the academically gifted – and it depends on how we educate a broader group as well. If we assume that all start with equal ability we will fail on all accounts.

I think he is right on. Hard to imagine there is even an argument for the 1st 2…so obvious that it’s hard to imagine who would make such a claim. This is true in ALL areas…we each have different talents and gifts. As for the last 2, I half agree with RJS. Some further pursuit beyond High School is really needed to succeed, but this could be a trade or technical school, plumbers, Electricians, mechanics, etc are an excellent alternative to college/Univ. for some.

Just based on how averages work he could be correct on #2 but I doubt it. If half of the students are below average then the other half must be above average which makes “average” a bit of a misnomer. If you have 200 hundred students, 20 of them will be well above average, another 20 will be well below average and the rest will probably find themselves in the middle, being quite average.
I’m not so sure about #4, probably because I’m not an expert at educational trends so I can’t even begin to imagine what will make America’s future secure.
I completely affirm #1 and I think that #3 is correct only because we haven’t provided good enough alternatives to college. I like how a lot of other nations use apprenticeships as a means to educate. It doesn’t require an institution but still helps one develop the skills they need to succeed in the world.

Murray, like Allan Bloom, is an elite university professor who sees all the hoi polloi at state universities and shakes his head in disgust. (Jean Jaques Rosseau made a similar argument about too many people being allowed to work with their minds instead of their hands.)
His assertions are interesting. As other commenters have pointed out, no one actually argues the first two points. Some educational leaders say things like all children should be taught to read by such-and-such an age, but that is hardly saying all children are the same.
If anyone thinks all children in the United States are treated the same – even in public schools – I invite you to spend some time in actual public schools in different socio-economic settings.
His third point is curious. Again, no one says “everyone” should go to college. But his counter is that “too many” people are going to college. How so, I wonder? Not everyone can go to the University of Chicago, but that hardly seems to prove the point.
His fourth point assumes the fate of nations is decided by the brilliance of its leaders, not the health and vitality of its society from top to bottom. The elite will lift the masses – if they will just get in line. It is an old argument, but not a very democratic one.

On Murray’s fourth point, it sounds a lot like Peter Drucker’s idea that by elevating the top 10 – 20% of a population that the rest will naturally rise because the distance between the top tier and the rest tends to be a constant. Drucker believes a better investment is to “lift” the whole by investing in the top tier than “push” the whole by investing in the middle or lower tiers.

The truths make good points, although I think RJS is right. The myths are straw men. Nobody believes them, so who is he arguing with?

RJS: Hear here!

What I’ve noticed with secondary students in Canada is that there is far too much choice, too many electives. A student can have graduated high-school with a great deal of special interest learning, but remain very ignorant of basics like history, science or math and for all intents and purposes they can be largely illiterate.
We do have a good grasp on post-secondary education with good college “trades” programs that many students find there way into (hopefully manufacturing remains to support them). However, we are limited in the number and types of universities, with little encouragement for liberal arts.

John (#4),
Yes but…your comment on his fourth point brings up another question in my mind. Our future depends on the “elite” and on the rest – and we need education across the spectrum. But I will make a provocative statement. Murray proposes that “America’s future depends on how we educate the academically gifted.”
Lets think about the church – ultimately the church’s future is in the hand of God – so I would not say that the future of the church depends on how we educate, but I also think that we can make mistakes that impact both ourselves and future generations (just read the OT). So I think that the future of the Church depends on how we educate (disciple) the academically gifted. We have blown this royally within evangelicalism and beyond.
Many (Dawkins, Dennett, Shermer,…) are quick to point to a negative correlation between IQ or education level and religious belief. The implication is if you are smart, if you think clearly, you will see the truth, and give up childish things (faith). This attitude is rampant within our Universities, and this kind of “peer pressure” is incredibly hard to resist. And the questions people raise are real, they need to be dealt with.
In the church we often preach a lowest common denominator faith. The faith is simple enough to be understood by a 12 year old – or every 20 year old – or every 35 year old (a true statement) – and this is all we need to know – this is all anyone needs to know (false). This is a sure way to lose that top group … think about it.
So a personal perspective…I have struggled through the years to find a path that I can affirm, whole heartedly. The disconnect between the two sides of my life – in church and in academia – caused deep soul searching – to use an overused term: cognitive dissonance. In searching for this path I have been told, many times in many ways, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, that I am in a demographic so small that it is not worth the investment of time and effort to even help me wrestle with the questions. I am not worth the time as an individual – and those who have similar struggles are not worth the time and effort as a group.
My perspective on a tough issue.

While getting her masters in education about a decade ago, my wife was “taught” myths 1 and 2 in her master’s classes at a public university. So at least some educators believe(d) them. The idea was that if a child isn’t learning it’s the teacher’s fault, not the child’s. The teacher just isn’t doing a good enough job to motivate and inspire the child and find the child’s learning style, etc. Like many myths, it contains grains of truth – good teachers will motivate and inspire and find ways to reach children with different learning styles. But at the same time, the truths stated by Murray are more foundational than the myths as they are stated and taught by some educators.
My wife found a similar attitude among some public high school administrators – there is enormous pressure on teachers not to fail students. If a student fails (let alone multiple students), it reflects poorly on the teacher’s performance evaluation, because it also reflects poorly on the school system’s (and admin’s) performance evaluation by the state and federal gov’t. The assumption again is, if you were a good teacher/school, you wouldn’t have to fail kids because you’d be able to find a way to inspire and teach them. So kids who have no ability to do anything like true grade-level work, keep getting passed through the system.
I agree with the assertion that too many are going to college. There are probably some who aren’t going to college who should, but I think those are outnumbered by the ones in some form of college who would be better off getting advanced training in vocational or technical fields. For a while I worked with construction companies and learned there is a huge shortage of skilled workers in the construction field and it’s getting worse because so many high schools have cut their vocational/technical/shop programs and are pushing those non-academically inclined kids to attend community college. I’m not talking about unskilled labor jobs in the construction industry, picking up scrap material and throwing it in the dumpster. I’m talking about fairly high paying jobs in welding, carpentry, masonry and the like. The construction companies are nearly desperate to see the trend reversed and are underwriting programs like PBS’s “Bob the Builder” in hopes of getting the next generation of kids to see working in the construction industry as a positive potential career path.

I’m not an educator so I guess take this with a grain of salt.
1. If not everyone should go to college, then presumably more than half of the students would in fact be above average.
2. What defines a good student? I almost always got A’s in my classes, but there were often more studious people in my classes. Did my good short-term memory, etc. make me a “better” student than someone who actually learned good study habits that would serve them better than my brains do now that I’m in the real world that needs disciplined habits?

I think the myths are useful in supporting a system that tries to get everyone to the same level of mediocrity. Spending money on or encouraging the intelligent isn’t fair so there have to be myths to support why that can’t happen.
I don’t think the problems with public education can be reduced to these myths/truths, but they do help explain part of the problem.
As for the too many in college thing. I both agree and disagree. I think every can use a much education and encouragement to learn how to think as possible – that is needed to truly “secure the country”. But I did my time in honors/AP classes and at college with the masses who hated school and only did it to meet their parents’ or society’s expectations. They were the ones that forced the teaches to create stupid pop quizes, multiple choice tests, and other basic education ploys just to get them to perform at all in class. It cheapened the education process to have people there that could care less about learning anything. so while I fully support education for all, I think there needs to be easier and cheaper access to good education for those who want it. Not that such a system could exist without it being taken advantage of, but in theory it would be nice.

RJS,
I think you make a good point about how the church tends to talk to the lowest common denominator and leave it at that. This is not always the case, but often is, and it leaves people with more intelectual couriosity stuck in a situation where what they are taking in at church is not anywhere near the level of what they take in during their own reading and conversation. The church should not be inacessable and elitist, but is should provide a venue for deeper more thoughtful teaching and discussion.

#3 may be one of the most important mistakes that our culture has made in the past 50 years. Less than 3/4 of all Americans have a high school degree, and a high school degree is nearly worthless for ensuring someone meaningful employment. and yet, we are driving headlong toward this goal of getting as many people as possible into massive student debt to acquire a soon to be equally worthless four year degree.
the liberal arts were not designed to produce a gainfully employed middle class. the liberal arts were designed to produce a well rounded elite.
we don’t need everyone to go to college. we need to remove the social pejorative perspective on trade schools.

As far as myth #4 goes, the reason that a country like Japan has been able to get so far ahead is because instead of focusing all of their attention on the academically gifted, they force the class to advance as a unit. Ironically, in Japanese Education no child really ever is left behind. The intelligence of the brighter students is channeled into teaching those who are less gifted and keeping them up to speed with the class rather than advancing the brighter students far beyond their peers.

jhimm,
I don’t think that the only reason for education is vocational advancement – and I don’t think the only value for society is earning potential. Certainly these are part of the picture but…
If we are going to have any kind of meaningful democratic government we desperately need an educated electorate. Education only for the elite will only work if it also means decision making only by the elite and none of us (least of all me) think that this is the right course for the future.

I would be curious to know if the book addresses multiple intelligences in respect to educational reform. Along with this would be the cultural dynamics of learning styles. Our system is woefully behind and burdened by assumptions and hold-overs from privileged paradigms. As presented here, these myths/truths seem slightly enlightening, though very inadequate.
Peace,
Jamie

I don’t know if I think that there is too many students in college. However, I agree that we devalue those occupations which do not require higher education. By doing so we end up outsourcing many of our jobs, the most significant of which is agriculture in my opinion. When we become dependent upon other nations for our bare necessities, we are put in a dangerous position.
My brother-in-law is from England and has lived in Australia. For him, finding a plumber was a huge chore. In fact, because there are so few of them, general repair workers can come whenever they want, so they are able to skip out on any appointments to surf (literally). It can take a week of taking off work to be there when the plumber comes. I see this trend occurring to a smaller degree here in the States, and hope we do not continue to progress down this road.

RJS you are probably my favorite poster/contributor and the one I agree with most often. But on this topic I think you may be overstating the importance of college in producing an educated electorate. I’d rather see the elementary, middle and high schools do a better job of providing a solid basic education, along with more robust vo/tech options both after high school and post high-school for non-academically inclined students (who would still have to be basically educated through high school better than they currently are). That would produce an electorate educated enough to vote thoughtfully, without having to depend on college to raise everyone up to some remedial level of basic education necessary to participate meaningfully in society.
Heck, even today I know plenty of high school educated “blue collar” workers whose political opinions seem (to me anyway) as insightful as those of some academics, even if they couldn’t write about it in publishable prose.

Sorry, that should read:
” . . . along with more robust vo/tech options both DURING high school and post high-school . . .”

Having heard Dr. Murray and having read the book, and having subbed in school districts in the western suburbs of Chicago, I would agree with the myths. The one I agree with the most is on the issue of too many people going to college. It is not arrogance or believing that college is just for the elite, it is a realization that how the collegiate experience is played out is not always the best method. That someone has to go to a four year institution for an accounting degree is just wrong. It can be done in 2 – 3 years. And ask almost any accountant, what they have learned is rarely if ever used in the work place. He is also right that too many employers use the BA as no cost screening devise in looking for potential employees.
It is short book and worth the read, pick it up.

My prejudice is that people should have better things to do than read Charles Murray. Not because public education doesn’t have myths, but because we don’t need to be adding his to the number. That said …
“Myth 1: All students are the same.”
Does anyone outside Murray’s imagination believe that? (Perhaps in his mind “liberals” do.)
“Myth 2: All students are good students.”
See response to Myth 1.
“Truth 2: Half of the students are below average.”
Perhaps this should be relabeled Myth 2a. Half the students are below the MEDIAN . The distribution of students must conform to certain characteristics for half the the students to be below average, and this may not be the case. (More than half the taxpayers in the U.S. make less than the average income; exactly half make less than the median.)
“Myth 3: Everyone should go to college.”
See Response to Myth 1.
“Truth 3: Too many students are going to college.”
Maybe. But it is also possible — quite likely in my view — that the students that are going are choosing to go into the wrong fields, or they are not getting the education they need for other reasons. Is it becoming clear that we should have been sending more students into science and engineering in the last couple of decades, and fewer into business and finance?
“Myth 4: America’s future is secure, in spite of educational disarray.”
See response to Myth 1.
“Truth 4: America’s future depends on how we educate the academically gifted.”
Much less than a half truth. For good or ill, everyone is/will be part of the economy, and our future will be optimized as we optimize the outcomes for the largest number of people.
I have worked both in academia (10 yrs university physics teaching/research) and industry (25 yrs R&D). Only a very small percentage (~1%) of science/engineering students I taught were really gifted, in my view (perhaps Murray’s definition of “gifted” is more liberal). But the bulk of the progress that I have observed being made in industry comes from the work and perseverance of people who would have been in the lower 99%. I am convinced that “average” people can excel if they are motivated. Perhaps we have forgotten during the last few decades how to inspire students to work and perseverance, communicating explicitly and implicitly the myth that only the “academically gifted” can do the hard stuff.

The first two seem so obvious they shouldn’t even be discussed — but I know they’re included because some actually debate this.
“Too many students are going to college.”
I absolutely agree. RJS and others have said post-high school education is essential. Yes and no.
Post-high school education is required because we have made it required.
I think we need to re-examine trade schools and AAs. There are jobs that do not require four-year degrees. There are jobs that don’t require any.
I’ve seen this particularly in my field. I call it degree escalation. Jobs that once required no degree moved to a professional school certificate or AA. That then progressed to a BS. Now there are forces pushing the field to require a MS. The thing is, for this particular specialty within the field, the job has only gotten easier. As a matter of fact, the difficulty has been movig inversely with degree requirements for years.
There are probably many causes of this, but the effect is simple — people (who are often not cut out for college) rack up debt taking classes they really don’t need, filling valuable seats, and raising the overall cost of education for degrees they really don’t need.
We need to put the brakes on this trend and ask if there are better ways to train people to do the jobs they need to do.

I have to object to “myths” 3 and 4. 3 I’ve heard before from members of my own family who are part of the academic elite. What they and certain posters (jhimm #14 in particular) overlook is that one of the reasons our political and social culture is the mess it is, is that we no longer teach our students critical thinking. This is something that could/should be taught at the secondary level as well, but should also be (I am not saying “is”) part of the result of any decent liberal arts education. Historically, the U.S. has never advanced so fast as it did in the aftermath of WWII and the G.I. Bill; I suspect opening college to the “masses” (by no means all elite) was a big part of the reason.
As to myth 4, I have the perspective of being the Dad to both gifted and disabled children, so I “get” to see both sides of the educational divide up close and personal. I believe our future depends as much on how we help the “least of these” to achieve their full potential, as it does on doing this for the “gifted.” It’s very probably true that my son who has Down syndrome will never invent a lifesaving technology or lead the nation to develop enlightened policies. But watching the way people’s eyes and perspectives are opened when they see him achieving way beyond what they expect of someone they only thought was “retarded,” I cannot but believe that society benefits from lifting up the “bottom” as well as the “top.”

Karl,
I probably am overstating it … but I don’t like the sentiment behind jhimm’s statement that “the liberal arts were not designed to produce a gainfully employed middle class. the liberal arts were designed to produce a well rounded elite.”
I think that we need a well-rounded electorate capable of thinking through the issues. Education doesn’t guarantee this, but it helps. I also think that business and industry benefit from an educated workforce – and education is more than vocational training.
In my view “well rounded” doesn’t mean “knows a little of all the right things.” Well rounded means knows how to think – how to tackle a new problem intelligently.
Does this mean universal college education? – No I don’t think that it does. But we benefit from broad opportunity for higher education, as ron states quite well.
And under no circumstance do I think that our current system is perfect.

I know this is besides the point, but, just to clear things up:
Median is a type of average. as is mode, and mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

Stephen – yes but…
If one goes to Excel for example there is no function “mean.” The function is “average(…)” which returns the average (arithmetic mean).
The same is true in the other programs I use – the terms are used in a fashion where average and arithmetic mean are interchangeable.
I usually prefer to calculate expectation values…

Jamie #17 – agreed. multiple intelligences are key to this discussion and make his ‘truth #4′ quite dangerous. How does one decide ‘academically gifted’, and at what age? Academics play to different intelligences at different grades and in different subjects.
Not everyone should go to college, but every child should have the educational opportunities to be prepared for college. There are many socio economic factors that drive decisions early in a child’s life and label ‘academically gifted’ or not. It is tragic.
I would venture to say the many who have made America’s past ‘secure’, would not have been labeled ‘academically gifted’ early in their life (ie., creatives who don’t fit in the linear, concrete environment of early education today), but we are grateful they were educated! The arts have not been considered academic, but studies show they are key to economic success.

jhimm – “the liberal arts were not designed to produce a gainfully employed middle class. the liberal arts were designed to produce a well rounded elite.”
who are you saying ‘designed’ the liberal arts for the elite?
Wow, I see them as the basis of understanding what it means to be a human being on the planet.

RJS,
I think we want much the same thing. I just think a preferable approach would be to revamp earlier education to better teach people how to think starting with the primary grades. There was a time when a high school education gave the typical student much better critical tools with which to set out in life, than the average high school (or even college) graduate leaves with now. An anecdotal example: C.S. Lewis prepared the broadcast talks that became “Mere Christianity” with the average British layman in mind. That book is pitched at the typical person with what we would call a high school education in England in the 1930′s, and the typical enlisted person in the armed services. But today, most of my college educated Christian friends find “Mere Christianity” almost impossibly difficult to read and feel like it’s way over their heads. Even taking into account difficulties caused by changes in language, word usage, culture and idiom over the past 6+ decades, that is shocking to me.
I’m not advocating that public schools try to become elite “classical” prep schools, nor that universities be available only to the select few. I’m in favor of broadly available higher education, too, just not near-mandated due to limited other options, like it is now. If people truly don’t learn how to think critically and tackle a new problem intelligently unless they are college graduates, then there’s a problem. Rather than seek to send more such poorly educated people to college for remedial training in how to think, I’d prefer to work on fixing the public education system, while also providing more opportunities for other kinds of vocational training for people who (hopefully) have been given the basic critical thinking “building blocks” in elementary, middle and high school, but who aren’t inclined to pursue college level academics. There’s nothing wrong with earning an honest living as a skilled plumber, electrician, carpenter, welder, metal worker, etc. and such people sometimes have the ability to vote intelligently even though they didn’t go to college.

RJS, I heartily agree with your concern for the church losing that top group. I think of my very bright, well-educated children, and how they are served up the pablum of Christianity Lite on a weekly basis. However, I also worry about making “church” or Christianity so complicated that the greater whole does not find a way to engage in that truth, too.
It is our experience that many people turn OFF their intelligence when they walk in the doors of the church. Rarely are there forums that challenge THOSE thinkers to their very best in their Christian faith and walk.
I will go so far as to say, my children (who are all adults) comment on the worship environment embraced by most “happening” churches. They don’t “get it.” Why is it so dumbed down? The music is repetitive. They perfer the hymns (not because of the tempo or the tone), but because of the respect and quality of content. I think that one of these days one of the studies sponsored by one of the highly paid Christian research groups will find, “OMG! we have none of their type and quality Christian in the church!” Oh wait, wasn’t that what the Willow Creek studies came out with last year?

Myth 1: All students are the same. – FALSE
Truth 1: Ability varies from student to student. TRUE
All students are individuals, and the big problem with western teaching styles is that they are taught from one learning perspective, instead of looking for each student’s learning style
Myth 2: All students are good students. THE POTENTIAL EXISTS
Truth 2: Half of the students are below average. STATISTICALLY TRUE
But the ‘average’ point doesn’t have to be at the pass/fail mark. I believe all students would succeed if they are motivated to do so. Unfortunately, socio-economic factors, differing learning styles, varying skills of the teachers, etc. do place some at a disadvantage.
Myth 3: Everyone should go to college. FALSE
Truth 3: Too many students are going to college.
The trade skills learned through apprenticeships are equally valuable and necessary.
No comment on Myth #4

I resonate with much of what is being said above–my addition is this:
raise the bar in elementary school and up. I agree with those who say we’ve dumbed everything down. (my one data point is taking one child through school to college). I also think that a liberal arts ed is essential to a good society–religous or not. I’m pretty sure that the 8th grade grads from my Dad’s era were much more literate than many college grads today. Schools today are self fullfilling–they purpetuate the myths because those students who learn the way schools teach excel. The rest, unless they are raised in families that understand their differing gifts may get left behind. My perfect elementary school would be a little farm with gardens, animals etc. and lots of books.(there’s more to it obviously–like passionate teachers) Students would just naturally use and grow both sides of their brains. Everything would only be “easy” for those in the very gifted upper, upper parts of the curve. And maybe socialization would be the best thing that some of them would learn.

I’m not sure I agree with “too many students going to college.” More accurately, I think there are too many students going to college who don’t belong there and too many students who should be in college who aren’t.
Two anecdotes. First a guy I know, now thirty years old, went to college for two semesters after high school. He went because that was what was expected by his well-educated parents. He failed to attend classes and completely flunked out. It almost ruined his relationship with his folks. Not long after that he attended a vocational school to become a mechanic for high-end cars. He has been a mechanic ever since and loves his life.
Second, a friend of mine came from a poverty level family. No one in his family had gone to college. To him, college was something middle class folks in the burbs did, not people like him. He is exceptionally bright and has an inquisitive mind. A few years ago he and I conversations about the value of formal education. I strongly encouraged him to take a class or two, just to see if it was something he liked. He was in his early thirties with a wife and four kids but he decided to check it out. To make a long story short, I’ll be attending his graduation next month.
I think the real issue is that we need to do better job of vocational discernment.

Michael, I’m glad to have read your comment before I wrote mine….
I believe that many students go to college at the wrong time. Some young people need to go through some kind of apprenticeship — which ties critical thinking to actual problems that must be worked through in reality, not on paper — right out of high school, before they go off to college.
For some, military service takes care of this. For others, missionary work helps … or something like the PeaceCorp.
I went to college right out of high school, like so many. I left after my freshman year because I was offered a job that I absolutely could not refuse. I didn’t get back to college until 17 years later.
When I did get back, I spent two years in the traditional undergraduate program … but my last 18 months in an adult degree completion program that was introduced. I cannot tell you the difference it makes to be learning what you know you need to know.
Also, these programs use cohort learning. Not necessarily that everyone gets promoted together, but that there was a big focus on learning as a group. This made a huge difference for me, especially in the courses where I was struggling. Seeing the variety of ways the other members of the group approached problems was priceless.
I think that too many young people go to college as a means for growing up…and what a costly (and, too frequently, unsuccessful) exercise.
One of the things I appreciate about the model used by Berea College in Kentucky is the way they integrate learning with doing. I would love for my boys to get that kind of education….

I would agree with Truths #1 and 2. I don’t know if too many people are going to college, however I do not think everyone has to go. I think we as a country could do better in recognizing different types of intelligence and learning styles. As for #4, I think how we educate all children will affect our future, not just the academically gifted. Everyone has something to offer and if we just go after the gifted, we are marginalizing others and the potential that they have.

Half of the students are below average.
I understand this was said to make a point, but that’s why they use standard dev’s, right? I agree though, that overall, Americans think of everyone as being good or special, but it’s simply not the case.
Some have commented on waiting to attend college until a more appropriate (or mature) time in the students life. I agree. I will say though… I was an extremely academically gifted student(top 10-20 school probably – full scholarship) and dropped out after my 3rd semester. I’m now trying to go back to school with a wife and four kids. I would love to get a quality education, but unfortunately will probably have to settle for the night classes provided by a local private college or a degree farm like University of Phoenix. From my research and discussions with former students these outlets are more like high school than what college should be. They are simply a way to get a piece of paper, not an education.
Point being, anyone who waits to go to school, stands a substantial risk. By waiting, life happens and there are responsibilities that prevent attending school full-time during the day. Anyone, who would consider waiting should also consider that the education will be sub-par. (excluding self-educating)

I wish there were vocation schools that offered some classes in New Testament, Old Testament, Ethics, and Intro-theology. One of my children was academically oriented and went to a Christian College, another was Mechanically inclined and went to a vocational school. The difference in their spiritual interest is profound. I wish there were Christian Vocational schools that offered a faith based environment geared toward their learning style. Maybe more hands on interdisplinary mission and theological/bible learning. I felt my mechanic got short changed spiritually andd communally in the vocational setting.

I think the myth behind my above comments would be that vocational students might not be interested in the Bible.
And I believe with my whole heart that vocational students are interested in the Bible but need an inviting environment to learn and a community within which to learn and grow spiritually.
I think church considers the vocationally inclined student. I hear of many campus ministries in academic setting but few to none in vocational schools.

I meant, I don’t think the church considers vocationally inclined students.

Sirs: You need to add a 5th myth, namely, that there will be jobs in the future for students who don’t go to college. Truth: there are no jobs in the future due to automation, computerization, and robotics.

In response to the original post:
I found all of the arguments grossly oversimplified, which is what Murray does in almost all his writing.
In response to RJS #9:
My wife and I are heading into an interview on Monday for a program that brings gifted college students together with people who are usually marginalized due to race, class status, etc. We bring to that program several years’ participation in a non-residential community that intentionally brings people together across lines of race, class, religion etc. One thing we need to see is more people in the educated top tiers open to God’s leading into humbling service such as Jean Vanier has taken into L’Arche.
Right now the church is focused on the collegiately educated comfortable middle class. It misses both the intellectual class and the marginalized (memories of my primary school education here). It is certainly important that we present an educated Christianity to the educated class. I just finished a discussion with a professor about the number of people who find themselves between the church, where they cannot express their professional selves, and the academy, where they cannot express their faith. But until the church considers those socially marginalized as part of their mission, all the discipling in the world for the elite will not matter. It will simply continue to increase the divide between classes, and that is not the call of Jesus’ church. Rather, the church needs to be a place where the divide is healed, where people can cross the usual lines a la Galatians.
Fortunately, many of our Christian colleges, as well as larger universities, are embracing service learning. That can simply be a cool program, or it can offer real ways to bring the educated together with others in meaningful ways. I take it as a good thing when my undergraduate mentor says “I find that history majors are usually unsettled five years after graduation and are usually leading something, usually in the non-profit sector, ten years after graduation.
Peace,
Randy