I had a real jolt while reading Tom Friedman's latest column in The New York Times.

Friedman wound up a piece of educational attainment and economic health with some comments on Teach for America. This organization recruits recent graduates from good schools and sends them for a two-year stint teaching in high-need areas. This is a worthy aim.

What caught my eye was Friedman's report that TFA applications are up 40% over last year (itself a record year, with 24,700 applicants for 3,700 spots). At Princeton, 15% of the graduating class has applied; at Yale, 16%.

I love teaching and wouldn't want to cast stones at those who take on this challenge. But I'm uncomfortable with TFA's booming popularity:

  1. More than anything else, don't the numbers suggest a herd mentality and a thirst for competition? A herd mentality, because this option has suddenly found favor with large numbers. Thirst for competition, because winning a teaching spot with TFA is improbable: 15% of applicants last year secured a position.
  2. Because of the competitive admissions, TFA looks good on a résumé. I expect a spike in TFA alums among law school applicants in two years' time. Lehman isn't hiring this year, the finance sector is under a dark cloud: teaching suddenly looks solid, and respectable. The TFA "brand" is well-known, and respected.
  3. According to TFA's figures, teaching compares favorably with other job options open to graduates. Financially, it's not a hardship post.
  4. The TFA program is structured. There's an entry point and an exit. There's also training and support.

In addition to good news about TFA, I'd like to read more reports of young graduates who march to a different beat and who make opportunities for themselves, especially in smaller businesses and entrepreneurship.