Some (perhaps a smaller part) of what we learn in school is through explicit curriculum. We first learn the skills—how to read, write, and do arithmetic—and then we begin the long process of learning the subject matter. This is what schools want to teach us. We are taught in every visible way how to do things and what we should know.
From the beginning, we also learn other things: how to follow the rules, how organizational hierarchies work, and how we can be held accountable for inappropriate behavior. We also learn what matters to other members of our tribe—personal accomplishments, competitive success—and what makes some people more important than others. These are elements of the hidden curriculum, or what might be called the meta-curriculum of the school.
By the time students get to college, they’ve already absorbed a lot of these lessons, or they wouldn’t be here at all. But universities offer a new meta-course. These are lessons about knowledge itself: how to evaluate it, how to identify its kinds, how it is created. To miss these classes, as is likely to happen, is to miss out on the most valuable thing about a college education.
The meta-curriculum of the university carries political implications. As political scientists and others have shown, there is a credential divide in this country. On one side is the largest, most loyal group of Trump supporters: white people without college degrees. On the other side are those with bachelor’s or advanced degrees who tend to vote Democratic. Clearly, college education has some influence on political behavior.
Some analysts believe the divide reflects the feeling of non-college-educated white people being left behind in the high-tech economy. These feelings of disappointment and failure in turn make this group susceptible to racist dog whistles—DEI policies are giving unfair advantages to undeserving minorities!— used by right-wing politicians. Others believe the divide reflects the liberal indoctrination students experience in college.
Analysis of the diploma divide has been ongoing for nearly a decade, beginning shortly after Trump was first elected in 2016. Organizing this part of the work would require a separate article. I am merely suggesting here that this divide is partly attributable to college meta-curriculums, because in theory these courses are supposed to make people less susceptible to political charlatans, emotionally manipulative rhetoric, and receptive to simple magic bullets for solving complex social problems.
Therefore, it seems worthwhile, for both pedagogical and civic reasons, to put a meta-curriculum of the university on the table. I think there are seven that are crucial to me. No doubt other people’s lists will be different, as will their ideas about the importance of these lessons. But it seems to me that these lessons, if taken to heart and put into practice, will enable college graduates to distinguish meaning from nonsense, fact from fiction, rational argument from demagoguery. Well, that’s the lesson.
- Empirical claims are not the same as moral claims. For example, saying that the death penalty can deter capital crimes is an empirical claim. This is not a matter of opinion. With the right data, we can determine whether this statement is true (it isn’t). To say that the death penalty is wrong is to make a moral claim that must be addressed philosophically. Students who learn how to make this fundamental distinction are less likely to be distracted by philosophical apples when the problem is an empirical orange. Whether to retaliate Feel They will understand that, like justice, it has nothing to do with its actual consequences.
- The evidence must be weighed. Arguments gain credibility when they are supported by evidence, especially when they involve empirical questions. However, the importance of assessing the quantity and quality of supporting evidence has not been widely appreciated. If college students learn how to do this, and have a tendency to do so even if the argument or analysis is emotionally compelling, then they are less likely to be misled by anecdotes, atypical examples, or cherry-picked studies that employ weak methods.
- Errors often hide in assumptions. An argument is persuasive because it sounds good and seems to be supported by evidence. Yet it may still be wrong because it starts from the wrong premises. An important meta-lesson in this regard is that it is important to examine the basis of an argument to identify logical or empirical cracks that make it unreasonable. Always ask, “What does this argument take for granted but might be wrong?” This is a valuable habit of mind, one developed in college classes where students are taught to question their own beliefs, which can cause some discomfort.
- Logic is important. The poet may want to express the numerous elements of the contradiction involved, but those who claim to offer serious political analysis must respect logic, the absence of which should be viewed with suspicion. If your theory of social attraction says that birds of a feather flock together, unless opposites attract, then you’d better find a higher-order principle to reconcile the contradiction, or admit that you’re just making things up. The meta-lesson that logic matters, again learned through disciplined skepticism, provides at least partial protection against toxic nonsense.
- The truth may be elusive, but it is not an illusion. In recent decades, truth has been under attack under the influence of postmodernist social theory. Even so, unless we abandon the concept of evidence entirely, it is still possible to believe that some empirical assertions are true in a general sense. Students learn this in their topic courses; they learn that research can uncover real facts, that some empirical claims are more confident than others, and that some claims are clearly false. This meta-lesson can help ward off nihilism—the paralyzing feeling of not knowing what to believe—that often arises when faced with a deluge of lies.
- The expertise is real. In college, students meet people who have spent years studying some aspect of the natural or social world and possibly creating new knowledge. These people—scientists, academics—know their subject area better than anyone else. The meta-lesson (and hopefully one that sticks) is that expertise is hard-won, and while experts may not always be right, they are a more reliable source of analysis than glib pundits and glib politicians.
- The slogan is not analysis. Slogans that are useful as a rallying cry often fail to convey true understanding. “Defund the police” is as useful for preventing crime as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is for solving gun violence. Other examples abound. The important meta-lesson is that producing a useful, meaningful analysis of a complex problem can itself be complicated—and as college students should learn, it’s wise not to sacrifice complexity for catchy sound bites.
The suggestion that these meta-curriculums insulate college graduates from the effects of irrationality and irrationality is at odds with the fact that college graduates may still succumb to these ills. It’s hard to know whether this happens because lessons were not learned or if circumstances necessitate that we forget those lessons. I suspect that when educated people—the J.D. Vances and Josh Hollis of the world—seem not to learn these lessons, what we see is a display of cynicism that serves self-interest. I further suspect that lessons were indeed learned, but applied inappropriately, much like a doctor who becomes a skilled poisoner.
Still, the credential gap is real. On average, all else being equal, a college education does seem to make people more resistant to misinformation, comforting myths, evidence-free claims about the world, irrational emotional appeals, illogical arguments and outright lies. This is as it should be; it is higher education that plays its role in thwarting authoritarianism. To be sure, universities are not the only place where such critical skills can be acquired. Universities are the place where this ability is best organized.
Ultimately, the problem is not the diploma divide. For educators, the question should be how to better communicate the university’s meta-courses, assuming a shared belief in the value of these courses for the intellectual and civic benefits they can bring. Emphasizing these elements of the “hidden curriculum” of course means that they are not hidden at all, so when critics insist that our job is to teach students how When we think about it, we can say, “Yes, look here: this is exactly what we are doing.”
