Annotated Bibliography: Certification Tests vs. College

Jonas, Peter M. and Don Weimer. “Non-traditional vs. Traditional Academic Delivery Systems: Comparing ETS Scores for Undergraduate Students in Business Programs, 1996-1999.” Abstract. Resources in Education (1999).

McKernan, James. Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy, and Action Research. New York: Routledge Press, 2008.

Murray, Charles. “For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time.” The Wall Street Journal. 13 Aug. 2008. 13 Jan. 2009

Qualities Employers Look For Career and Community Learning Center, U of Minnesota. 25 Jan. 2009

Robinson, Ryan P. & Doverspike, Dennis. “Computers in Teaching: Factors Predicting the Choice of an Online Versus a Traditional Course.” Teaching of Psychology (2006): 64-68.


Charles Murray in his 2008 article “For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time,” attacks the bachelor’s degree, framing it as a “cruel” and “insane” system that provides few individuals with success. He comments that only a “handful of majors,” tell an employer anything specific about an applicant’s knowledge or skill level. He proposes that the solution to this problem is “not better degrees, but no degrees (1).” Specifically, Murray contends that national certification tests are the best means to show an applicant’s qualifications. He suggests that the CPA exam used for accountants should be viewed as the certification prototype to be replicated by all other disciplines.

While Murray’s point that the current system of degrees is flawed is somewhat valid, his solution seems to have many weaknesses. Firstly, Murray has failed to see any negative effects that will occur if a certification system is established. Secondly, Murray has disregarded some basic truths about how people learn best. Lastly, Murray has seemed to ignore many of the qualities employers are looking for in potential employees.

Murray’s claim that certification tests essentially have no drawbacks at the least invites speculation. For one, certification tests offer barriers to more people than just those “coasting through their years in college (2).” What about those working diligently who know their content, but are poor test takers? What about people with learning disabilities who may not be able to pass a certification test, but are highly qualified for their profession because of their interpersonal skills? What about English Language Learners (E.L.L.) who may have exemplary leadership skills, but are unaccustomed to standardized test formats or questions? Clearly, Murray has overlooked many potentially capable people who would be denied the opportunity to contribute to society because they cannot pass a test. Furthermore, if the poor test takers, students with learning disabilities, and E.L.L. students have to keep re-taking the certification test, the idea that certification tests are more cost-efficient is defeated.

Moreover, Murray seems to paint a picture that if a system of certification tests is put into place, everyone will rush to sign up for online courses and bypass traditional college. While a 1999 study by Peter Jonas and Don Weimer indicates that students in non-traditional accelerated business programs score as well, if not better, than traditional students in business programs at the same institutions (abstract), a 2006 study conducted by the University of Akron shows that students still prefer traditional programs. Specifically, the 2006 study found that “students’ attitudes and subjective norms toward an online course to be relatively negative compared to their preference for a traditional course (Robinson & Doverspike, 67).” Some students do not like how online learning hinders faculty and peer interaction. Still others have anxiety about the Internet and computer use in general (Robinson & Doverspike, 68). Hence, Murray seems to have overlooked the fact that while online courses may be less expensive, many students prefer traditional education. This makes sense when put into the context of Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory (1983). For instance, those that learn best by interacting with others would find online learning challenging. And online learning could be problematic for those individuals who are not visual or kinesthetic learners.

Just as students prefer multiple delivery modalities to learn material, employers prefer applicants who are well-rounded and flexible. If students are only preparing to pass a certification test, the chances that they will develop all of the skills an employer is looking for is greatly diminished. A multiple choice and essay certification test can only show one-dimension of someone. Employers are interested in more than just that one dimension. For example, The Career and Community Learning Center of the University of Minnesota, says knowledge is just one of several characteristics employers are looking for in employees. An ability to communicate effectively, to exercise maturity, to demonstrate flexibility, and to be a leader are all just as important as being academically strong.

A look at McKernan’s book, Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy, and Action Research, supports this notion of the detriments of preparing people only to pass tests. If Murray’s utopia of national certification tests were to come to fruition, our society would move closer to an uncreative, uniform civilization. Being able to pass tests would take precedence over anything else related to being valuable employees. The ability to communicate effectively, to work as a team player, to be a creative problem solver would become underdeveloped, as students would concentrate on passing a standardized exam.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ohio Department of Education Standards & McKernan’s Curriculum and Imagination

Looking at the social studies standards for second grade, I can see how McKernan’s idea that an objectives, outcomes-based model would inhibit depth. The indicators for History alone are quite lengthy, and when you consider history is just one of seven different benchmarks (e.g., geography, economics, government, etc.) that is to be covered in a year, one can see how a teacher may focus end up doing a glossary overview of things. Take for instance, the seventh indicator for History:

7. Recognize the importance of individual action and character and explain how they have made a difference in others’ lives with emphasis on the importance of:

a) Social and political leaders in the United States (e.g., George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Tecumseh, Harriet Tubman, Abraham Lincoln, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr.)

b.) Explorers, inventors and scientists (e.g., George Washing Carver, Thomas Edison, Charles Drew, Rachel Carson and Neil Armstrong).

It is kind of unrealistic to expect children to learn all of this in any great detail along with nearly forty other indicators for social studies in one year. I don’t know if block scheduling is the solution to this dilemma of depth though, especially at the elementary level, children’s attention spans are rather short.

Based upon the words used to identify what students should be capable of doing at the end of the school year, I have to agree with McKernan that “an outcomes-based design is suitable for low-level rote learning instruction” (p. 87). A look at Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives for the cognitive domain (1956) shows that most indicators do not go beyond the first two levels of understanding, namely knowledge and comprehension. Take for example, the indicator mentioned earlier. The words recognize and explain are used, and these do not ask a student to think critically, make judgments, or apply their knowledge. Moreover, it is in the application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information that students have a chance to be imaginative and creative. The sheer bulk of low-level objectives that must be met though make it very difficult to allow for higher level orders of cognition. I suppose I must agree with McKernan then that “in a sense, to have objectives is to set limits to human speculation and development” (p.97).

A positive spin on this “low-level objectives” though is that “unanticipated, or unplanned, objectives or outcomes” are likely to be achieved if a teacher is imaginative in his or her instruction and allows for inquiry (p. 81). For instance, if a teacher decides that students will be able to hit this seventh indicator for History by assigning everyone in class one of the famous leaders or inventors above, and then having the class have a discussion where each student talks from the standpoint of their historical figure, than more than simple recall and comprehension is bound to take place. Students will likely immerse themselves into their new parts and want to be experts on their historical person’s life so that they seem credible and real. Also, students will likely want to show that their person is the “best,” so they will be motivated to show how their contributions to society were the most profound.

Even still though, I think McKernan does have a valuable point when he say that these objectives “reduces education to a production process rather than a creative and constructionist experience” for the vast majority of Ohio classrooms (p.90). I mean most teachers may look at the 7th indicator above and think well a few books and some worksheets can cover this standard. These teachers worried about covering every objective, may not stop and think of creative ways to allow students to gain not only this factual knowledge, but think critically about the lives of these social and political leaders, explorers, and inventors. But for the teacher that does stop to think and is concerned about stretching his or her student’s minds, open classroom discussions can take place about the contributions of George Washington Carver versus Thomas Edison or ponder what the world would be like if they hadn’t lived. In these discussions, teachers can “help students to become aware of their beliefs, attitudes, and values” and “detect bias and prejudice” (p. 93).

On another note, McKernan believes that “students should not be told what it is they will know, find, and be able to do as a result of their inquiries” (p. 39). I can see how by telling students objectives may be restricting, as students may then just concentrate on memorizing the facts and neglect to deeply think about things. However, can’t telling students the objectives help them to learn the information? I know that if I am told I will need to learn such and such, I tend to increase my level of focus so that I learn such and such. And is there something wrong with adjusting the standards to allow for higher level thinking. Students don’t need to know that the real 7th indicator is to “recognize the importance of individual action” highlighting the lives of George Washington, Harriet Tubman, etc., but can be told that they will need to be able to analyze and evaluate the lives of George Washington and Harriet Tubman.