False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
False Advertising for College Is Pretty Much the Norm
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-07/for-profit-colleges-aren-t-the-only-ones-with-false-advertising
258 comments
Or instead, like most other advanced societies, we could stop trying to quantify higher education in purely personal economic return on investment grounds and consider an educated populace a public good.
If education rather than credentialing was the overwhelming driver, a priority should be providing education to people without credentialing built-in, in a form factor that's a lot more flexible than a classic four-year degree. Ideally, it should be easy for people to educate themselves on their own pace, even as they are doing other things at the same time (like working). I somehow expect a system focused just on education like this would not have the ballooning costs we see now.
The incessant obsession with multi-year degree-granting programs specifically is a lot more about the degree than the education.
The incessant obsession with multi-year degree-granting programs specifically is a lot more about the degree than the education.
I mean, in the U.K., if you’re interested in learning at your own pace, every university has at least some form of part-time course, local FE colleges do part time courses regularly, and there’s the Open University if you want to work towards a degree part-time. This is an American problem, not one to do with the concept of being able to prove you’ve completed an education.
This is missing the point. There are plenty of flexible educational opportunities in the US too (e.g. community colleges).
Both the UK and the US (and I say this as someone who's taught at universities in both countries) face the problem that the majority of people going to college now are going just because they need a degree to get a job, not because they have any interest in learning anything.
Education is a public good. Forcing people through diploma mills isn't.
Both the UK and the US (and I say this as someone who's taught at universities in both countries) face the problem that the majority of people going to college now are going just because they need a degree to get a job, not because they have any interest in learning anything.
Education is a public good. Forcing people through diploma mills isn't.
Part time education in america is still expensive
Compared to what? Taking one three-credit course at Bunker Hill Community College is $558, taking four three-credit courses is $2,232 ($3,925 with health insurance) [0]. At City College of San Francisco (one I picked for to have a west coast option) is $138 for one typical course and $552 for four (that's just tuition but other fees are extremely low).
If you're taking courses at a private college part-time, sure their tuition is a lot higher; taking just one course like Fundamentals of Instructional Technology from RIT Online is $3,243 [2]. Four-year public universities will probably cost somewhere in-between but it varies a lot by state.
[0] https://www.bhcc.edu/tuition/tuitionfees-fall2018/ [1] http://www.ccsf.edu/en/student-services/admissions-and-regis... [2] http://www.rit.edu/ritonline/course/2181-1-HCIN-660-01
If you're taking courses at a private college part-time, sure their tuition is a lot higher; taking just one course like Fundamentals of Instructional Technology from RIT Online is $3,243 [2]. Four-year public universities will probably cost somewhere in-between but it varies a lot by state.
[0] https://www.bhcc.edu/tuition/tuitionfees-fall2018/ [1] http://www.ccsf.edu/en/student-services/admissions-and-regis... [2] http://www.rit.edu/ritonline/course/2181-1-HCIN-660-01
> taking four three-credit courses is $2,232
For reference, that's how much my mother was paid to be an adjunct professor at a local community college to teach 10-20 students a 3 credit course for a semester.
Something seems wrong with the pricing
For reference, that's how much my mother was paid to be an adjunct professor at a local community college to teach 10-20 students a 3 credit course for a semester.
Something seems wrong with the pricing
Yes, adjunct faculty pay is often low for what they’re expected to do at almost all schools.
A lot of tuition paid is not for the instuctor but for infrastructure and administrative costs inherent to running a school. Some of the money paid for your mother’s course probably went toward paying non-adjunct faculty; it’s not like schools charge different rates based on the instructor or what they’re paid.
A lot of tuition paid is not for the instuctor but for infrastructure and administrative costs inherent to running a school. Some of the money paid for your mother’s course probably went toward paying non-adjunct faculty; it’s not like schools charge different rates based on the instructor or what they’re paid.
It's not free in the UK. The open university certainly isn't cheap.
You get the OU funded the same way you get regular university funded, in Scotland at least.
Well, yes, you can fund it by borrowing the money, but only if you don't already have a degree.
[deleted]
I really like CS don't get me wrong, but I would not have majored in it if I could get the same ROI on somthing I enjoyed more.
Already done. Education is considered a public good. That is why K-12 education is paid for in the US. As far as a higher degree, the landscapers working across the street probably would not benefit from getting a degree and I do not see how the public would benefit from paying for a degree for those guys either. There are a significant number of jobs out there that would not benefit from people getting a degree. There are perhaps classes that might help in regards to those jobs but a degree is not something that would help. Also, the classes that would help are generally provided exceptionally reasonably priced at community colleges.
The degree might not matter for certain types of jobs, but the additional education could still enrich people’s lives — and a more educated populace could make for a better society in general.
Libraries are publicly funded places allowing you to enrich your educational needs. Yet, they have become a homeless shelter.
This sounds like/is bad economics.
Educated populace in video game history isnt value added like an engineering degree.
You can educate yourself in anything, but society only values education in a few value-added sectors.
Educated populace in video game history isnt value added like an engineering degree.
You can educate yourself in anything, but society only values education in a few value-added sectors.
It is pure economics, supply and demand.
I wish this was auto-replied to every comment in this thread. Each tackling the "real" problem with education
I've been in these 'advanced' societies, and often they have a lower rate of bachelors degrees (with lower requirements) than the US. They track individuals early on to non-college career paths.
Also, the quality of the education is not the same.
Also, the quality of the education is not the same.
My school, Purdue, offers a program (Income share agreement - ISA) where a borrower pledges a percentage of their future income for 10 years in exchange for tuition money. To me, the most "innovative" part of the program is that the percentage charged varies by major.
The main conclusion from this program is that if you're income is going to be high (basically >=$70k/year starting salary), you're better off with a traditional loan.
Main site: https://www.purdue.edu/backaboiler/ Tool for comparing ISA to traditional loans: https://www.purdue.edu/backaboiler/comparison/index.html
The main conclusion from this program is that if you're income is going to be high (basically >=$70k/year starting salary), you're better off with a traditional loan.
Main site: https://www.purdue.edu/backaboiler/ Tool for comparing ISA to traditional loans: https://www.purdue.edu/backaboiler/comparison/index.html
Purdue also makes it simple to graduate in 3 years for certain majors (I did, 2015 MGMT) and in-state tuition is extremely affordable. I think my total tuition while I was there was less than $40,000, which included extra summer course tuition to facilitate that 3 year graduation.
In Europe we call that taxes.
That's how you get nothing but science and engineering majors, because most other majors don't have the ROI on average. But society is probably better off with some history and art majors too.
We need to find a way to finance education that isn't based on future income.
We need to find a way to finance education that isn't based on future income.
Well it's also how you have a globally competitive workforce that can experience wage growth. We have a shortage and companies are outsourcing for good paying jobs because we aren't prepping enough people for the market.
There are some that can't get scholarships or even into universities in their state for engineering because there aren't enough spots. The no return majors take up resources and funding and leave countless people in debt they can't pull out of for a long time.
We don't have a shortage of history and art majors or lawyers and also, real artists would be a better investment than art majors anyway. No need for the debt. Just invest in the talent for society to thrive and be balanced.
> We need to find a way to finance education that isn't based on future income.
This already happens. One example - We have collegiate sports revenue financing no return liberal art degrees directly or indirectly via scholarships.
There are some that can't get scholarships or even into universities in their state for engineering because there aren't enough spots. The no return majors take up resources and funding and leave countless people in debt they can't pull out of for a long time.
We don't have a shortage of history and art majors or lawyers and also, real artists would be a better investment than art majors anyway. No need for the debt. Just invest in the talent for society to thrive and be balanced.
> We need to find a way to finance education that isn't based on future income.
This already happens. One example - We have collegiate sports revenue financing no return liberal art degrees directly or indirectly via scholarships.
Studying things that don't make money has always been the privilege of the wealthy. Just because college was once only for the elite doesn't mean those same tedious sayings apply to our current world.
But when I went to college, in the 70's and 80's, people did exactly that. I studies math but lots of folks studied History. You didn't have to be wealthy.
What changed? Or was that time an aberration?
What changed? Or was that time an aberration?
1) Vastly more people enroll in college now, per capita. It used to be a powerful signal, since only the most intelligent and driven people would go. Now it is just the minimum you need.
2) Cost of college has skyrocketed, and public funding for colleges has plummetted.
2) Cost of college has skyrocketed, and public funding for colleges has plummetted.
Well there's quite a few progressive European countries which it might be worth the USA having a look at
There's a presumption, I think, in this scheme that if loans for art majors are less available or attractive, the cost of an art degree will decrease. In which case you'd reach some equilibrium where the loans are not very good, but the cost is not very high, and people would still get art degrees.
Wouldn't sunk costs for a university make it difficult to charge based on major? All the fixed infrastructure and overhead would be the same. So you would end up with high cost for loans, plus significant costs for delivery; I think most colleges and universities would cut back on art majors etc.
With the rate tuition has risen (e.g. it rose 30% every year I was in college) it seems clear it's decoupled from the fixed costs & overhead.
[deleted]
Why?
The most creative people I know are engineers.
My friend who studied music is a tutor making $15/hr.
He isnt writing, I know this, he does his job, goes home, end of the day as far as society outside netflix is concerned.
While this engineer is constantly playing and learning music theory, recording, and soon to be releasing content.
This could merely be personality traits, but the methodical nature of engineering may make it beneficial outside physics.
The most creative people I know are engineers.
My friend who studied music is a tutor making $15/hr.
He isnt writing, I know this, he does his job, goes home, end of the day as far as society outside netflix is concerned.
While this engineer is constantly playing and learning music theory, recording, and soon to be releasing content.
This could merely be personality traits, but the methodical nature of engineering may make it beneficial outside physics.
Discrimination on major, quality, and completion happens through fintech refinancing already. All the good borowers get scooped away into lower rates leaving all the toxic loans on the state supported books, and it's only a matter of time til it comes crashing down.
I find this line of logic tempting, but this seems to not apply to my scenario at all- hear me out.
Major: ECE Job: Software Engineer Debt: Some private variable rate, some public fixed rate. The highest private loans were originally around 100bp higher than my public, and eventually jumped to a 300bp gap, but by that point I had paid them off so it didn't impact me. Credit rating: Pretty high- no missed payments, multi-year-old account, has multiple lines of credit.
All of my re-fi offers, for the most part, have advertised lower interest rates than my private loans and the lower bound of their advertised rate was slightly less (50-100 bp) than my public loans. However, when I'd start going through the process my offered interest rate would end up around the median of the rate window they were offering, and refinancing would have been a wash.
This meant refinancing only would have made sense for my private loans, not public. By the time I had seen these offers, it didn't make sense for me to refinance because by that point I had paid off the highest interest private loans (as general debt repayment strategy suggests)!
I don't think the incentive to refinance from a government loan is there because those interest rates are already pretty good. Obviously, someone might make a poor decision and refinance with a higher rate "because it's easier" but if my case generalizes I can only see private lenders suffering because of higher rates.
On a side note, I also don't want to get rid of my government debt too soon in case some sort of policy change occurs in my favor. This isn't to say I'm not pursuing an aggressive debt strategy, just that my private loans are my higher priority.
Major: ECE Job: Software Engineer Debt: Some private variable rate, some public fixed rate. The highest private loans were originally around 100bp higher than my public, and eventually jumped to a 300bp gap, but by that point I had paid them off so it didn't impact me. Credit rating: Pretty high- no missed payments, multi-year-old account, has multiple lines of credit.
All of my re-fi offers, for the most part, have advertised lower interest rates than my private loans and the lower bound of their advertised rate was slightly less (50-100 bp) than my public loans. However, when I'd start going through the process my offered interest rate would end up around the median of the rate window they were offering, and refinancing would have been a wash.
This meant refinancing only would have made sense for my private loans, not public. By the time I had seen these offers, it didn't make sense for me to refinance because by that point I had paid off the highest interest private loans (as general debt repayment strategy suggests)!
I don't think the incentive to refinance from a government loan is there because those interest rates are already pretty good. Obviously, someone might make a poor decision and refinance with a higher rate "because it's easier" but if my case generalizes I can only see private lenders suffering because of higher rates.
On a side note, I also don't want to get rid of my government debt too soon in case some sort of policy change occurs in my favor. This isn't to say I'm not pursuing an aggressive debt strategy, just that my private loans are my higher priority.
If you can default on education loans what are they going to take as collateral? Your knowledge? What would stop every new graduate defaulting? Do you think your idea might lead to greatly increased costs for everyone due to the risk?
People like credit. The threat of losing it is more than enough reason to avoid bankruptcy.
You can completely recover from bankruptcy within 7 years - a much shorter time than it takes to pay off a loan.
More than likely though, it won’t come to bankruptcy. After not paying your credit card for awhile, you can usually negotiate a lower rate.
There are all kind of ways to get around bad credit - co-signers, putting things in your spouses name, etc.
You can also buy a house three years after a foreclosure with a government backed low interest FHA loan with only 3 percent down payment.
I did a “strategic default” on two mortgages and had a short sale. I had an unofficial “pre-pre approval” for a mortgage 34 months afterwards and started the process of getting a house built. 36 months to the day, they started the loan process for an FHA mortgage.
It’s really easy to get a secured loan. I also got a great interest rate on a car loan during those three years. I couldn’t get unsecured credit to save my life though.
More than likely though, it won’t come to bankruptcy. After not paying your credit card for awhile, you can usually negotiate a lower rate.
There are all kind of ways to get around bad credit - co-signers, putting things in your spouses name, etc.
You can also buy a house three years after a foreclosure with a government backed low interest FHA loan with only 3 percent down payment.
I did a “strategic default” on two mortgages and had a short sale. I had an unofficial “pre-pre approval” for a mortgage 34 months afterwards and started the process of getting a house built. 36 months to the day, they started the loan process for an FHA mortgage.
It’s really easy to get a secured loan. I also got a great interest rate on a car loan during those three years. I couldn’t get unsecured credit to save my life though.
> You can completely recover from bankruptcy
No I don't think you can ever completely recover from bankruptcy. I'm often asked on applications for things 'have you ever been bankrupt'. It is a permanent matter of public record that you are a bankrupt.
No I don't think you can ever completely recover from bankruptcy. I'm often asked on applications for things 'have you ever been bankrupt'. It is a permanent matter of public record that you are a bankrupt.
This would be an amazing topic for a blog - whether you can (and how long it takes to) recover from bankruptcy in different countries.
Recover as far as getting anything you want on credit.
My understanding of the current situation is that if you don't pay your federal student loans, they will take gradually money from your earnings or benefits instead. If you don't have earnings or benefits I guess they don't take anything?
That seems like a better situation then permanently ruining someone's credit score, which seems like it's regressive and stops people getting out of the situation because it's harder to get back on track.
This seems like a step backward not forward to me.
That seems like a better situation then permanently ruining someone's credit score, which seems like it's regressive and stops people getting out of the situation because it's harder to get back on track.
This seems like a step backward not forward to me.
[deleted]
It's extremely hard to get good, unbiased information on colleges. Almost every news source is either based on metrics that students don't care about (number of papers published by the department, NSF grants, etc), or basically advertising done by the school itself. If there was a way to get information about schools, stuff like "oh XYZ college has really great campus life" or "ABC college has an amazing hackathon community" or even "oh this school's food sucks", then I think it would be immensely popular. The only (but main) problem is convincing college students to contribute.
A problem with this is that it’s harder to do useful comparisons when most people have experience of only one of the things being compared. Eg if students say they are happy, does that mean the College is good or that they just bring in students who were happier than average in the first place.
How about:
- allowing discharging of student debt after 10 years
- allowing someone to pay only up to 10% of adjusted gross income per year (lenders cannot ask for more; voluntary prepayment is okay)
What will happen, probably, is that:
- lenders will start looking at earning potential of various degrees and loan amounts will be tied to degrees being pursued
- tuitions for degrees with low earning potential will be lowered
- universities who cannot afford to lower tuitions will shut down some departments. That slack will be picked up by community colleges.
- some of the majors will only be pursued by rich (as happened for hundreds of years)
- allowing discharging of student debt after 10 years
- allowing someone to pay only up to 10% of adjusted gross income per year (lenders cannot ask for more; voluntary prepayment is okay)
What will happen, probably, is that:
- lenders will start looking at earning potential of various degrees and loan amounts will be tied to degrees being pursued
- tuitions for degrees with low earning potential will be lowered
- universities who cannot afford to lower tuitions will shut down some departments. That slack will be picked up by community colleges.
- some of the majors will only be pursued by rich (as happened for hundreds of years)
This is at least congruent with my own experience on the provider side of the college equation; perhaps most interesting to me is the extent to which the grad school side is amiss: https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-befo....
It does seem like the current system cannot go on forever.
It does seem like the current system cannot go on forever.
Wait. 10 years is seriously the MEDIAN time to graduate an english lit. PhD?
That's awfully long.
That's awfully long.
It would be interesting for someone to perform such a study in the UK, which already has a near-perfect and near-complete data set of which schools made an offer to each student.
You wouldn't even need any data from the universities themselves:
- UCAS has the data for university offers and admissions (including subject studied)
- HMRC (UK equivalent of IRS) knows whether you were employed and how much you earned
If they were somehow allowed to join their data and then release a data set stripped of PII, which includes offers, acceptances and income over time, that would be super-useful for those who see choosing a university as primarily or partially a way to increase their future income.
You wouldn't even need any data from the universities themselves:
- UCAS has the data for university offers and admissions (including subject studied)
- HMRC (UK equivalent of IRS) knows whether you were employed and how much you earned
If they were somehow allowed to join their data and then release a data set stripped of PII, which includes offers, acceptances and income over time, that would be super-useful for those who see choosing a university as primarily or partially a way to increase their future income.
The Department for Education did exactly that. You can see the median earnings for graduates one, three and five years after graduation, broken down by subject and institution. You can download the whole dataset as a CSV. The data is also available in a user-friendly format on Unistats, the official website for comparing higher education course data.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/graduate-outcomes-f...
https://unistats.ac.uk/
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/graduate-outcomes-f...
https://unistats.ac.uk/
I think this would be an extremely interesting data set, but the obvious and simple analysis would not address the key problem that I see as mentioned in the article.
> On job placement, the biggest deception by prestigious colleges and universities is to claim credit for the brainpower and work habits that students already had when they arrived.
I see this all the time in my workplace. Many of my colleagues went to prestigious universities, but I am fairly certain that many of them would have gotten similar jobs even if they had not. There is evidence backing this up in that we gladly interview and hire candidates with similar pre-university experience who did not later go to prestigious universities.
It just so happens that prestigious universities admit students with such pre-university experience at fairly high rates.
My personal opinion is that the pre-university experience that I have in mind is a stronger and better signal than the university that they attend.
> On job placement, the biggest deception by prestigious colleges and universities is to claim credit for the brainpower and work habits that students already had when they arrived.
I see this all the time in my workplace. Many of my colleagues went to prestigious universities, but I am fairly certain that many of them would have gotten similar jobs even if they had not. There is evidence backing this up in that we gladly interview and hire candidates with similar pre-university experience who did not later go to prestigious universities.
It just so happens that prestigious universities admit students with such pre-university experience at fairly high rates.
My personal opinion is that the pre-university experience that I have in mind is a stronger and better signal than the university that they attend.
The data from UCAS would help distinguish between:
- Someone who accepted a place at Oxford
- Someone who was offered a place at Oxford, but went to Durham instead
It should also help distinguish those two from:
- Someone admitted to Oxford who decided not to go to university at all
However (and perhaps this is the problem you have in mind) the data set for this last category is likely to be very very small.
So perhaps the data can help to compare universities, but not whether going to university at all helps.
- Someone who accepted a place at Oxford
- Someone who was offered a place at Oxford, but went to Durham instead
It should also help distinguish those two from:
- Someone admitted to Oxford who decided not to go to university at all
However (and perhaps this is the problem you have in mind) the data set for this last category is likely to be very very small.
So perhaps the data can help to compare universities, but not whether going to university at all helps.
This is a great idea.
I taught college for about a dozen years (part time on the side), and may get dragged back into again soon.
I can say emphatically, the quality of the schooling only helps people who would succeed anyways. Those that won't or can't, no school can help them. There are just too many lazy, unmotivated or simple defeatist students out there. To not be too harsh, there are many students over their head in life (debts, relationship or mental issues, etc...), also which a school can do little to help with.
Nothing proved this to me more than seeing half the class not turn in the easiest assignments.
I can say emphatically, the quality of the schooling only helps people who would succeed anyways. Those that won't or can't, no school can help them. There are just too many lazy, unmotivated or simple defeatist students out there. To not be too harsh, there are many students over their head in life (debts, relationship or mental issues, etc...), also which a school can do little to help with.
Nothing proved this to me more than seeing half the class not turn in the easiest assignments.
As someone who spent a number of years doing free tutoring for CS classes (i.e. the kind where you can't choose who is coming in to see you), I strongly disagree with this.
Yes, there were students who started and ended the quarter hopelessly overwhelmed. But there were also students who through determination and hard work and lots and lots of help managed to dig themselves out of that hole. Many of those students would not have "succeeded anyways", they succeeded specifically because of the help they got.
If you mean to say that they succeed because of their willingness to ask for (and make use of) help, then sure. But your original comment makes it sound like you're tossing them into the same bucket as the students who never need to show up for help in the first place, which is absolutely unwarranted.
Yes, there were students who started and ended the quarter hopelessly overwhelmed. But there were also students who through determination and hard work and lots and lots of help managed to dig themselves out of that hole. Many of those students would not have "succeeded anyways", they succeeded specifically because of the help they got.
If you mean to say that they succeed because of their willingness to ask for (and make use of) help, then sure. But your original comment makes it sound like you're tossing them into the same bucket as the students who never need to show up for help in the first place, which is absolutely unwarranted.
>"If you mean to say that they succeed because of their willingness to ask for (and make use of) help, then sure."
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. Success often requires asking for help.
Countless times I tried to help students that really didn't seem to care too much, they just wanted to get through the class. (it was required for the degree)
But I regretted splitting my time equally with people that just wanted to eek their way through, when they didn't even care, and didn't really need my help to pass, just to get a better grade.
Where as I wish I had devoted more effort/time towards students that really wanted to excel, even if their skills weren't great, or their talent was near non-existant.
The students that had a drive and need to learn, but still needed help, were the ones that succeeded.
Half the students were there for unknown reasons and would play games in class. Try and tell me how much I should care that they have run out of time to get their projects done at the last minute?
It's better for them to fail than to get shoe-horned into the next class because I helped them maintain their last minute freakout sessions. This did not help them succeed at school or life.
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. Success often requires asking for help.
Countless times I tried to help students that really didn't seem to care too much, they just wanted to get through the class. (it was required for the degree)
But I regretted splitting my time equally with people that just wanted to eek their way through, when they didn't even care, and didn't really need my help to pass, just to get a better grade.
Where as I wish I had devoted more effort/time towards students that really wanted to excel, even if their skills weren't great, or their talent was near non-existant.
The students that had a drive and need to learn, but still needed help, were the ones that succeeded.
Half the students were there for unknown reasons and would play games in class. Try and tell me how much I should care that they have run out of time to get their projects done at the last minute?
It's better for them to fail than to get shoe-horned into the next class because I helped them maintain their last minute freakout sessions. This did not help them succeed at school or life.
> Half the students were there for unknown reasons and would play games in class.
I think this is an example of why college isn't for everyone; and if it is for everyone, not all at the same time.
These people are literally there because they're scared (or, rather ingrained) to think about where else they should be.
I think this is an example of why college isn't for everyone; and if it is for everyone, not all at the same time.
These people are literally there because they're scared (or, rather ingrained) to think about where else they should be.
> also which a school can do little to help with.
I think I disagree with you there.
Debt - Schools could do better at financial assistance and in helping students better manage their finances. Relationship/mental issues - Schools could provide or increase their access to counselors/therapists. Peer mental health support is also becoming an attractive option.
All of this being said, I'm not arguing that schools should help with these issues, rather just pointing out that there are solutions out there.
I think I disagree with you there.
Debt - Schools could do better at financial assistance and in helping students better manage their finances. Relationship/mental issues - Schools could provide or increase their access to counselors/therapists. Peer mental health support is also becoming an attractive option.
All of this being said, I'm not arguing that schools should help with these issues, rather just pointing out that there are solutions out there.
>Debt - Schools could do better at financial assistance and in helping students better manage their finances.
That's not what I meant, I mean there are students that spend all their "loans" on video games and entertainment instead of on living expenses and school, so no matter what the school does to help, the student will screw this up.
Can't blame the school for irresponsible students.
I have had a couple of homeless kids, yes friggin homeless kids, and one turned into rockstar. The only reason he could even attend was because the school made every student have a laptop (they provided, with full software and support)
There is money available to everyone, and there's only so much you can do to help people. Sometimes letting them fail instead of propping them up is what is actually good for them.
As like many other's here, I failed at the beginning, and learned a lot from that failure.
That's not what I meant, I mean there are students that spend all their "loans" on video games and entertainment instead of on living expenses and school, so no matter what the school does to help, the student will screw this up.
Can't blame the school for irresponsible students.
I have had a couple of homeless kids, yes friggin homeless kids, and one turned into rockstar. The only reason he could even attend was because the school made every student have a laptop (they provided, with full software and support)
There is money available to everyone, and there's only so much you can do to help people. Sometimes letting them fail instead of propping them up is what is actually good for them.
As like many other's here, I failed at the beginning, and learned a lot from that failure.
why should a college offer therapists? that is not their job. a college should have a medic for emergencies and for all other things the student can go to a doctor's office that specializes in their issue
The role of a college has expanded far past just being a collection of faculty, dorms and classrooms. Modern universities and colleges are expected to provide an "experience" with accommodations on par with a fancy resort or spa. And eventually Pournelle's Iron Law takes over.
And why is it a college's "job" to have a medic for emergencies? Isn't that what emergency rooms are for, along with ambulances?
It seems as if your opinion is that a college should have a baseline minimum for protecting students. Some think that minimum should encompass mental health, or financial education.
It seems as if your opinion is that a college should have a baseline minimum for protecting students. Some think that minimum should encompass mental health, or financial education.
Are you being serious? Ambulances cannot arrive before in house medics. There are many cases where someone could have been saved if cpr or bandaging started before the ambulance arrived. I don't know of any case where someone was so suicidal that they needed to talk to someone (and wanted to) immediately or else they would commit suicide.
Psychiatry and financial education is not an emergency service that is needed immediately. That would be like offering cancer treatment at the university. If someone has cancer and they need treatment they should go to the hospital.
Psychiatry and financial education is not an emergency service that is needed immediately. That would be like offering cancer treatment at the university. If someone has cancer and they need treatment they should go to the hospital.
Would you agree that every apartment block should have their own medic on duty then?
that would depend on the size of them. typically colleges have large campuses with lots of people "doing" stuff there. in apartments they are not so full in the middle of the day and during the night, not much happens. if however it was a big apartment complex with a doorman and elevator operator then they should have some medical person on call. in my synagogue we have a first aid kit and during large prayers there is someone who knows how to use it. that seems like a good idea
I had a financial counselor at my college suggest I a put the last semester on a credit card. Fuck that woman, she is terrible person for even suggesting that. I dropped out in my final semester and quite frankly it hasn't mattered. College is insanely expensive, and at the end of the day for some careers is a waste of time.
A degree vs no degree for 1 semester's tuition? Yeah I'd advise most people to put it on a credit card too if that was the only option.
Over your lifetime, it will matter to the vast majority of people. For 1 semester's tuition, it's worth it just to get past HR filters.
Over your lifetime, it will matter to the vast majority of people. For 1 semester's tuition, it's worth it just to get past HR filters.
Life happens and honestly I didn't give a shit about finishing up at 36 years old. The shiny degree wouldn't have made a difference in my life. And after helping in the hiring process and reading countless resumes I don't even skim the education section. I am not going to be impressed by the diploma. I will be impressed by relevant factors related to working with you.
And seriously, trying to convince a college student to drop 30k on a credit card is awful.
And seriously, trying to convince a college student to drop 30k on a credit card is awful.
...what!? A semester was 30k USD?
My entire two degrees was maybe 25k CAD. Why would anyone ever in the right mind even try to go to school if it costs that much?
Surely you meant 3k. You can't possibly get a credit limit for 30... Good God I hope not... Can you?
My entire two degrees was maybe 25k CAD. Why would anyone ever in the right mind even try to go to school if it costs that much?
Surely you meant 3k. You can't possibly get a credit limit for 30... Good God I hope not... Can you?
30k USD per semester is on the high side. There are plenty of state schools that have in-state tuition that ends up being about 30k USD for all 4 years.
Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a state with a good one, however.
Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a state with a good one, however.
A semester at any old American university could be $30k, especially for out of state tuition.
It's pretty easy to get $30k+ credit limits, I have two cards with over $40k limits (I do points milling/never carry a balance). If I were to max my total credit limit on all cards and pay minimum payments it would take 86 years to pay off.
It's pretty easy to get $30k+ credit limits, I have two cards with over $40k limits (I do points milling/never carry a balance). If I were to max my total credit limit on all cards and pay minimum payments it would take 86 years to pay off.
>A semester at any old American university could be $30k, especially for out of state tuition.
For public schools the average out of state tuition is about $10k.
The absolute highest is $23k. In state is much cheaper on average.
For private schools, $30k a semester is sticker price at an expensive school.
Very few college students can get limits that high.
> If I were to max my total credit limit on all cards and pay minimum payments it would take 86 years to pay off.
Most large credit cards charge accrued interest for the month plus 1% of balance (once your balance gets above a certain amount). It wouldn't take anywhere near 86 years for the majority of credit cards.
For public schools the average out of state tuition is about $10k.
The absolute highest is $23k. In state is much cheaper on average.
For private schools, $30k a semester is sticker price at an expensive school.
Very few college students can get limits that high.
> If I were to max my total credit limit on all cards and pay minimum payments it would take 86 years to pay off.
Most large credit cards charge accrued interest for the month plus 1% of balance (once your balance gets above a certain amount). It wouldn't take anywhere near 86 years for the majority of credit cards.
A 4-year degree at many American colleges can easily run to a quarter-mil. No I’m not kidding. That’s why it’s so incredible that people go there for anything other than employable degrees. What privilege level is a person on who can drop that kind of money just for fun? But there seem to be lots of them
That's sticker price at the most expensive private universities in the US. Even most of the students attending those universities aren't actually paying that.
Why is that a bad idea? You can get rid of credit card debt by filing bankruptcy, you can't get rid of student loan debt.
Because I didn't want to add more any more debt. And quite frankly at the time I figured anyone I would would want to work for would not care...sure that piece of paper on the wall is cute but it's a meaningless trophy after a while. What have you actually done and how can operate in a team environment is more important
The "prestige" of the degree. Meh
The "prestige" of the degree. Meh
She isn’t a “terrible” person for suggesting it. It was the most logical thing for her to suggest knowing statistically the lifetime salary outcome for someone with a degree vs. no degree.
Her job is to give general advice that works for “90% of the people 90% of the time”.
Her job is to give general advice that works for “90% of the people 90% of the time”.
It was the most logical thing for her to suggest
A student might be better advised to take a leave of absence, or finish up their degree part-time, or transfer to a less expensive or in-state school.
- Yes. But if it gets to onerous. There are ways to get out of credit card debt - see above. There is no way to get out of student loan debt.
- most colleges don’t take transfer credits for junior/senior level classes
- even if you go part time, most schools charge fixed fees per quarter + per credit hour. That would make it more expensive.
- most colleges don’t take transfer credits for junior/senior level classes
- even if you go part time, most schools charge fixed fees per quarter + per credit hour. That would make it more expensive.
A lot of debate about education forgets that roughly half of public university students wash out. Graduation is a real accomplishment that sets you apart from many others who had the same opportunity and access.
To clarify the above: only 54.8% graduate in 6 years. Not 4 years... 6 years, meaning more debt. And that assumes they graduate, as opposed to just giving up.
source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/10/bill-gates-us-college-dropou...
source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/10/bill-gates-us-college-dropou...
That doesn't necessarily mean more debt. It normally means they aren't taking a full load. Most schools charge by credit hour now until you go above 15, so the extra debt is mostly just 2 years extra interest.
There are just too many lazy, unmotivated or simple defeatist students out there.
That was me for a long time (I even dropped out once), until I took a course from a teacher that actually inspired me in a subject I found fascinating. Next thing you know I had a Masters degree in math.
That was me for a long time (I even dropped out once), until I took a course from a teacher that actually inspired me in a subject I found fascinating. Next thing you know I had a Masters degree in math.
Which is awesome, congratulations.
Some of my students were inspired in my classes and have good jobs in the industry. They were looking for something, and I had something to offer. I suspect your experience wasn't too different.
Unfortunately, most students don't find what you found...
Some of my students were inspired in my classes and have good jobs in the industry. They were looking for something, and I had something to offer. I suspect your experience wasn't too different.
Unfortunately, most students don't find what you found...
Since the discussion is about higher education in general, perspective from eastern culture..
Higher education most often helps poor students or students of limited means and without any family connections to land coveted jobs, which is life changing not only for them but for their family. Education (and to some degree small time entrepreneurship) is the only way for them to come out of their circumstances that were not of their choosing.
These people would not have succeeded anyways.
Higher education most often helps poor students or students of limited means and without any family connections to land coveted jobs, which is life changing not only for them but for their family. Education (and to some degree small time entrepreneurship) is the only way for them to come out of their circumstances that were not of their choosing.
These people would not have succeeded anyways.
I wonder if this is why so many Asian student do well in the US? Their base motivation is completely different than ours?
> Those that won't or can't, no school can help them.
Isn't that the complete opposite to what teaching is about?
Have you considered that maybe this isn't a problem with the students but a problem with society and the very problem with the education institutions and teachers like you that are just basically feeding on them?
It's far easier (and economically viable in a shortsighted way) to blame students for their shortcomings than to make the effort to help them. I hope you are not thinking that you're doing society a favour by failing them instead of making the effort to figure out what their strengths are and/or if the way your teach, or what your employer preaches, may actually terrible.
Maybe you shouldn't go back to teaching the next time you get "dragged back into" it.
Isn't that the complete opposite to what teaching is about?
Have you considered that maybe this isn't a problem with the students but a problem with society and the very problem with the education institutions and teachers like you that are just basically feeding on them?
It's far easier (and economically viable in a shortsighted way) to blame students for their shortcomings than to make the effort to help them. I hope you are not thinking that you're doing society a favour by failing them instead of making the effort to figure out what their strengths are and/or if the way your teach, or what your employer preaches, may actually terrible.
Maybe you shouldn't go back to teaching the next time you get "dragged back into" it.
I don't agree 100% with the OP, but there are some students that are indeed just net negatives on the class and in general.
My state used to pay 100% of your state college tuition if you maintained a 3.0 GPA. A lot of students in my freshman dorm stayed until the 30 hour re-evaluation period and then disappeared forever. They partied, never went to class, never studied, and withdrew from most of their classes. They'd regularly fall asleep in or oversleep for 11:00 classes.
As a teacher, how do you handle these students? Many of them have not been raised to be on their own, and college is the first time they're let "off the leash". They're unprepared to be independent adults.
Additionally some students fail the same class over and over, then keep retaking the class with no improvement. They keep asking the same questions, slow down the class, and make it more difficult for everyone else to learn.
As a teacher how do you handle these students? Maybe you've already failed them twice. Maybe you've had extensive study groups, office hours, extra credit materials for these people, but they continue to do poorly. Some of them you suspect have learning disabilities or other mental problems that may always interfere with their ability to take your class.
(Later the state college system changed it to 80% tuition for 3.5 GPA, and at least my college mandated a maximum of 5 withdrawls, which cut down on the problem some.)
My state used to pay 100% of your state college tuition if you maintained a 3.0 GPA. A lot of students in my freshman dorm stayed until the 30 hour re-evaluation period and then disappeared forever. They partied, never went to class, never studied, and withdrew from most of their classes. They'd regularly fall asleep in or oversleep for 11:00 classes.
As a teacher, how do you handle these students? Many of them have not been raised to be on their own, and college is the first time they're let "off the leash". They're unprepared to be independent adults.
Additionally some students fail the same class over and over, then keep retaking the class with no improvement. They keep asking the same questions, slow down the class, and make it more difficult for everyone else to learn.
As a teacher how do you handle these students? Maybe you've already failed them twice. Maybe you've had extensive study groups, office hours, extra credit materials for these people, but they continue to do poorly. Some of them you suspect have learning disabilities or other mental problems that may always interfere with their ability to take your class.
(Later the state college system changed it to 80% tuition for 3.5 GPA, and at least my college mandated a maximum of 5 withdrawls, which cut down on the problem some.)
> As a teacher, how do you handle these students?
Many people don't believe in working hard today for having a better life tomorrow.
They think they might as well get stuck by lightening and die. Should we blame them for this kind of thinking?
This why the idea of a weflare state seems to saddle the ones who work with more work at the expense of those who are not willing to do anything.
Today, the ones who get most benefit from the social system act indifferent to the soceity's need and refuse to contribute.
Maybe best system is one where everyone is left to fend for themselves and receive no help from government or society?
Many people don't believe in working hard today for having a better life tomorrow.
They think they might as well get stuck by lightening and die. Should we blame them for this kind of thinking?
This why the idea of a weflare state seems to saddle the ones who work with more work at the expense of those who are not willing to do anything.
Today, the ones who get most benefit from the social system act indifferent to the soceity's need and refuse to contribute.
Maybe best system is one where everyone is left to fend for themselves and receive no help from government or society?
> Today, the ones who get most benefit from the social system act indifferent to the soceity need and refuse to contribute.
Look at the Panama Papers and all of the off shore banks, the Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich, etc. As a percentage of income per individual, these are the the folks that benefit the most and contribute the least to society by several orders of magnitude. Subsidies, bailouts, elaborate tax evasion schemes, government guaranteed student loans. This is the real "welfare state". People on food stamps don't even scratch the surface in comparison.
Look at the Panama Papers and all of the off shore banks, the Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich, etc. As a percentage of income per individual, these are the the folks that benefit the most and contribute the least to society by several orders of magnitude. Subsidies, bailouts, elaborate tax evasion schemes, government guaranteed student loans. This is the real "welfare state". People on food stamps don't even scratch the surface in comparison.
> these are the the folks that benefit the most and contribute the least to society by several orders of magnitude
Let's not assume there are only 2 groups, one rich/evil and other poor/victims.
There are also rich who contribute positively to the soceity at large.
I've no problem with with poor people who contribute their share.
There are also poor people who negatively contribute to the soceity.
Money is not the only way people contribute. Social interactions/behaviour/attitude also matter.
Are rich people shitting on BART escalator?
Let's not assume there are only 2 groups, one rich/evil and other poor/victims.
There are also rich who contribute positively to the soceity at large.
I've no problem with with poor people who contribute their share.
There are also poor people who negatively contribute to the soceity.
Money is not the only way people contribute. Social interactions/behaviour/attitude also matter.
Are rich people shitting on BART escalator?
I absolutely did not classify all rich people. I specifically called out the extra wealthy that go out of their way to avoid taxes via loopholes or accounting tricks. Do you think Apple's billions of dollars in avoided tax is the same as someone shitting on the BART escalator? Do you think it's the same as McDonald's Corp not paying a living wage and as a result its employees being poor enough to need food stamps? (Which means tax payers are effectively subsiding McDonald's.)
It sounds like you're drawing the "extra wealthy" line at "can afford to spend $300 with a CPA"? Nobody wants to pay more taxes than they have to pay.
Of course nobody wants to pay more taxes then they have to pay. I'm not talking about paying extra taxes because you're nice. I'm saying per individual, those that actively avoid taxes by "technically being an Irish company which is actually a shell company and a bank in the Cayman Islands", those people that make immense amounts of money and pay next to no tax on it, per individual they contribute the least to our society. And they use their immense wealth to keep the system that way. And they rarely suffer any meaningful consequences for any of their actions.
Just because a CPA can do it for $300 doesn't change that.
Just because a CPA can do it for $300 doesn't change that.
> Today, the ones who get most benefit from the social system act indifferent to the soceity's need and refuse to contribute.
The ones that benefit the most from the welfare state are the ones that (theoretically) pay the most for it: the wealthy. Imagine if Gates/Jobs/Page/Bezos et al had to invest in 18 years of education and healthcare for every potential hire? They'd never get the employees they needed to strike gold.
The ones that benefit the most from the welfare state are the ones that (theoretically) pay the most for it: the wealthy. Imagine if Gates/Jobs/Page/Bezos et al had to invest in 18 years of education and healthcare for every potential hire? They'd never get the employees they needed to strike gold.
Those who benefit most from the welfare state are probably the people who hit a rough patch in life and instead of ending up homeless and desperate get a chance to recover back to contributing meaningfully to society.
Have you ever worked in academia?
The humanities are a day care and delayed adulthood for those who would be better suited doing anything else with their time aside from one or two students in every classroom of ~40.
For context, I left to work in the private sector with people who give a damn.
The humanities are a day care and delayed adulthood for those who would be better suited doing anything else with their time aside from one or two students in every classroom of ~40.
For context, I left to work in the private sector with people who give a damn.
>"Isn't that the complete opposite to what teaching is about?"
No, it's not. Higher education is not adult daycare. If I have half a class screwing off and playing video games _in class_, and the other half desperately trying to improve their lives.
I used a very strict grading policy, if you don't turn in your assignment, you get a zero, period. All it takes is 41% of not turning in your assignments and your class doesn't apply to your degree. (ie, failure by default)
Are you suggesting I commit fraud to let these students pass? I did not "fail" them, they failed themselves.
Edit: Fyi, 100% of all my students that failed did so by not turning in assignments. 100% of them.
No, it's not. Higher education is not adult daycare. If I have half a class screwing off and playing video games _in class_, and the other half desperately trying to improve their lives.
I used a very strict grading policy, if you don't turn in your assignment, you get a zero, period. All it takes is 41% of not turning in your assignments and your class doesn't apply to your degree. (ie, failure by default)
Are you suggesting I commit fraud to let these students pass? I did not "fail" them, they failed themselves.
Edit: Fyi, 100% of all my students that failed did so by not turning in assignments. 100% of them.
I've found the same to be true for mentoring junior programmers. Those who treat it as just a job rarely advance their abilities. Those who are genuinely interested in learning grew.
I've always disliked the verb "teach" because it implies that it is something I can do to you, when really all I can do is nurture, facilitate or provide a framework for you to learn.
I've always disliked the verb "teach" because it implies that it is something I can do to you, when really all I can do is nurture, facilitate or provide a framework for you to learn.
I’m not a junior developer. By the time I started my first job, I had already been a hobbyist for ten years - since 6th grade and had a degree.
By the time I started working, it was “just a job” and 20 years later, it still is. I study and “do well”, because I am highly motivated to stay employed and stay employable at market rates.
By the time I started working, it was “just a job” and 20 years later, it still is. I study and “do well”, because I am highly motivated to stay employed and stay employable at market rates.
> Isn't that the complete opposite to what teaching is about?
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
I taught EFL at a high school for 5 years. Being a good teacher takes a lot of experience, inspiration and hard work. It is a very, very difficult job. When I was doing it, I often thought how much easier it is to explain things to a computer compared to a person -- especially when the person is often doing everything they can to avoid listening to you ;-)
I don't want to diminish the role of a teacher because there is a huge difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher. It's just that there comes a point where you have to realise that the best you can do is to create an environment where it is possible for the students to learn. Everything else is up to the student.
The OP's point is very correct that of students who succeed, the vast majority would have succeeded even without the teacher. In those cases, the teacher may create a more pleasant environment, or may provide a convenient filtering of information. But there are very few disciplines where a good text book and a place to practice aren't enough. Where foreign languages are concerned, you don't even need the text book!
I fairly quickly realised that my "value add" in the classroom was to help those people who were borderline. There are always some people who are eager to work, but are constantly at a loss about how to start. In my experience, this is a very small percentage of the class (maybe only 10%), but you can make a big difference as a teacher to these students.
The real problem is where the teacher is placed in an environment where they are unable to concentrate on those students. For example, I often had classes of 42 students. For a language class, that's horrible. I can actually manage with 20, but if you get up over 30, it becomes impossible to spend enough time with the people who need it.
Of course, just like high school (which is filled with students who don't want to be there), undergraduate courses have massive numbers of students who are hopelessly uninterested in studying. There was a time when "university" was aimed at a very small number of very keen students. You had lectures with less than 10 other students and had tutors who helped you work your way through the ridiculously large amount of material that you had to learn. But such organisations are never going to fund a proper football programme, and what is the poor NFL going to do to train their players? ;-)
I mean your point is completely fair: society should take its share of the blame. However, consider who makes up society? The very people who think it is completely reasonable to drift from high school to university, take a bunch of random courses, and party every day. These same people whose career plans are to take their gold stamp for having sat through 4 years of boring lectures and exchange it for a "good job" (TM), which will bring them a very high salary but will have completely unspecified content.
Although, contrary to my rant, one of the things I really like about code boot camps is that it allows people to "wake up" from their delusion. After getting a general degree in "business" with specialisation in making unnecessarily complicated Excel spreadsheets, and working as a drone in the financial industry for 2 years, suddenly some people think, "OMG! Programming is amazing. What the heck have I been doing with my life?". Some of the best people I've worked with recently have come a similar route.
So it would be extremely great if we could help society get over this expectation of mediocrity and start making universities that are centres of higher learning. However, a teacher in a classroom is up to their ears wrestling with extremely unfortunate social dynamics and doesn't have very much time to change the world.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
I taught EFL at a high school for 5 years. Being a good teacher takes a lot of experience, inspiration and hard work. It is a very, very difficult job. When I was doing it, I often thought how much easier it is to explain things to a computer compared to a person -- especially when the person is often doing everything they can to avoid listening to you ;-)
I don't want to diminish the role of a teacher because there is a huge difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher. It's just that there comes a point where you have to realise that the best you can do is to create an environment where it is possible for the students to learn. Everything else is up to the student.
The OP's point is very correct that of students who succeed, the vast majority would have succeeded even without the teacher. In those cases, the teacher may create a more pleasant environment, or may provide a convenient filtering of information. But there are very few disciplines where a good text book and a place to practice aren't enough. Where foreign languages are concerned, you don't even need the text book!
I fairly quickly realised that my "value add" in the classroom was to help those people who were borderline. There are always some people who are eager to work, but are constantly at a loss about how to start. In my experience, this is a very small percentage of the class (maybe only 10%), but you can make a big difference as a teacher to these students.
The real problem is where the teacher is placed in an environment where they are unable to concentrate on those students. For example, I often had classes of 42 students. For a language class, that's horrible. I can actually manage with 20, but if you get up over 30, it becomes impossible to spend enough time with the people who need it.
Of course, just like high school (which is filled with students who don't want to be there), undergraduate courses have massive numbers of students who are hopelessly uninterested in studying. There was a time when "university" was aimed at a very small number of very keen students. You had lectures with less than 10 other students and had tutors who helped you work your way through the ridiculously large amount of material that you had to learn. But such organisations are never going to fund a proper football programme, and what is the poor NFL going to do to train their players? ;-)
I mean your point is completely fair: society should take its share of the blame. However, consider who makes up society? The very people who think it is completely reasonable to drift from high school to university, take a bunch of random courses, and party every day. These same people whose career plans are to take their gold stamp for having sat through 4 years of boring lectures and exchange it for a "good job" (TM), which will bring them a very high salary but will have completely unspecified content.
Although, contrary to my rant, one of the things I really like about code boot camps is that it allows people to "wake up" from their delusion. After getting a general degree in "business" with specialisation in making unnecessarily complicated Excel spreadsheets, and working as a drone in the financial industry for 2 years, suddenly some people think, "OMG! Programming is amazing. What the heck have I been doing with my life?". Some of the best people I've worked with recently have come a similar route.
So it would be extremely great if we could help society get over this expectation of mediocrity and start making universities that are centres of higher learning. However, a teacher in a classroom is up to their ears wrestling with extremely unfortunate social dynamics and doesn't have very much time to change the world.
This, along with so many other replies here, really brings home the point that some people just aren't ready yet straight outta high school.
We really need to quit pushing them; they're not ready. They'll most likely fail and be in a worse position than they were going into it.
We really need to quit pushing them; they're not ready. They'll most likely fail and be in a worse position than they were going into it.
[deleted]
> Have you considered that maybe this isn't a problem with the students but a problem with society and the very problem with the education institutions and teachers like you that are just basically feeding on them?
I've lots of experience in teaching mathematics to students of all age. I believe how well you can be taught exclusively depends on your genetics and the environment you are brought up in.
Not everyone can succeed, not even majority of them can succeed.
You can simply filter students at the lowest level to manipulate the propotion of students who are succeeding.
Since then I've stopped teaching and went to start my own business.
If you really want to help them, leave them to fend for themselves and let the evolution make them fit for survival.
Anything done to screw with the nature will bite you back.
I've lots of experience in teaching mathematics to students of all age. I believe how well you can be taught exclusively depends on your genetics and the environment you are brought up in.
Not everyone can succeed, not even majority of them can succeed.
You can simply filter students at the lowest level to manipulate the propotion of students who are succeeding.
Since then I've stopped teaching and went to start my own business.
If you really want to help them, leave them to fend for themselves and let the evolution make them fit for survival.
Anything done to screw with the nature will bite you back.
Where did you teach? I ask because I'm curious if that perspective is accurate at all types of post-secondary institutions, or if there is a difference between for-profits, private schools, community colleges, state schools, Ivy League, etc.
Elite institutions mostly filter these students out in the admissions process.
I taught at a community college. It's likely the percentage of people I have run into (I am still on the advisory board) is quite different than the universities. Or it's possible it's this area or a combination of both.
But my experience is anecdotal, and maybe the industry attracts video game players (my assumption) and this makes it more difficult demographic for success. The welders in the school seem to do great and generally succeed from what I have learned from the other departments.
Maybe I was a sucky teacher? Who knows...
But my experience is anecdotal, and maybe the industry attracts video game players (my assumption) and this makes it more difficult demographic for success. The welders in the school seem to do great and generally succeed from what I have learned from the other departments.
Maybe I was a sucky teacher? Who knows...
> Those that won't or can't, no school can help them
Rich can have unmotivated kid and poor can have motivated kids and vice-versa.
Those who can't succeed, schools can still accept fees from them and create a larger pool of resources which those who 'can do' can leverage at expense of those who can't.
Wether it's good or bad - it's for the society to decide.
Rich can have unmotivated kid and poor can have motivated kids and vice-versa.
Those who can't succeed, schools can still accept fees from them and create a larger pool of resources which those who 'can do' can leverage at expense of those who can't.
Wether it's good or bad - it's for the society to decide.
This is exactly what I ran into. And I was really happy for the highly motivated poor kids to get the opportunities in the school. Some of the few bright moments in my life is seeing students work hard and succeed.
It was noticed that those who were in more higher education went on to achieve more success later in life (where success is often more income, but obviously many other things too). Over time some inferred causality from this: clearly the reason why some were successful was because they had a degree or even a masters or PhD. Thus in order to encourage success, it was decided that higher education should be strongly recommended as a means to achieve success.
But what was not considered was that the causality here could be incorrect, instead showing us that people with traits optimized for success in life chose to enroll in higher education to use the additional knowledge and experience as a catalyst for their success (or they just otherwise loved academia or learning).
Due to the extent of which this first hypothesis was treated as a fact, we are left with a system that attempts to reinforce it at many levels of society, ignoring the large cost that it takes.
But what was not considered was that the causality here could be incorrect, instead showing us that people with traits optimized for success in life chose to enroll in higher education to use the additional knowledge and experience as a catalyst for their success (or they just otherwise loved academia or learning).
Due to the extent of which this first hypothesis was treated as a fact, we are left with a system that attempts to reinforce it at many levels of society, ignoring the large cost that it takes.
The causality / endogeneity problems with estimating returns to schooling (due to unobserved individual "ability" variables) have been known to economists if not politicians) since since at least the 1960s, probably even earlier, see e.g. the intro of http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/causal_educ_earnings.pd...
Measuring the true returns of education is impossible, both on the individual level (we can't replay history with alternative choices) and the population level (clean randomisation on education is socially unacceptable), so all we have are approximations and methodological hacks (technical summary in linked summary paper). But such approximations typically found that "ability bias" was not all that large.
Measuring the true returns of education is impossible, both on the individual level (we can't replay history with alternative choices) and the population level (clean randomisation on education is socially unacceptable), so all we have are approximations and methodological hacks (technical summary in linked summary paper). But such approximations typically found that "ability bias" was not all that large.
Same thing happened when someone noticed a correlation between successful kids and kids who have books at home.
Someone ordered that every household should have books at home while failing to realize that correlation != causation…
Someone ordered that every household should have books at home while failing to realize that correlation != causation…
It's a well-known fact that your car will go faster if it is painted red.
Same thing with home ownership.
All of the above are great screens for wealth. Interesting coincidence.
Parental income and educational achievments of children are almost perfectly correlated up until some very high wealth #.
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and...
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and...
Right, but so are parental income and parental achievement.
And last I checked, there is a strong correlation between maternal educational achievement and child educational achievement even after controlling for various things including wealth. The correlation with paternal achievement when controlling for other factors is much lower.
And last I checked, there is a strong correlation between maternal educational achievement and child educational achievement even after controlling for various things including wealth. The correlation with paternal achievement when controlling for other factors is much lower.
Yes, this is why the idea of meritocracy sounds fair, but really isn't. Our merit is largely determined by factors outside of our control.
> But what was not considered was that the causality here could be incorrect
How do you know this possibility has been left unconsidered?
How do you know this possibility has been left unconsidered?
It was certainly not unconsidered by labor economists who have worked on such problems for the past half century (http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/causal_educ_earnings.pd...)
"Just because you got in doesn't mean that you should go". With the amount of high school students being prepared nearly around the clock to gain admission into college, there looks to be a great deal of FOMO. From parents to students to possibly school administrations. Not many stop to question is the student themselves ready for College or will they wash out with tons of debt?
[deleted]
I think that most people shouldn't aspire to go to college. They should learn a trade instead in order to become a plumber, carpenter, electrician, or car mechanic. There are lots of occupations that don't require a college degree, yet provide a solid paycheck without the crushing mass of student debt accrued in the pursuit of a useless degree.
Michael Bloomberg himself said it best: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/19/pipe-dream-skip-c... I'm personally surprised that this isn't conventional wisdom already.
Michael Bloomberg himself said it best: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/19/pipe-dream-skip-c... I'm personally surprised that this isn't conventional wisdom already.
That implies that college is only important for skill transfer towards an occupation. Historically, part of college was to help an individual grow personally and intellectually, to learn not just what to think, but how to think clearly, in order to better engage with civil society as an active participant.
It's always a little off-putting when I see people suggest that higher education is just for a job, and discount the importance of the above. Education that teaches you how to work but not how to think is part of how you get people believing things like vaccines are bad.
Trade schools are awesome, not arguing that, but so is critical thinking.
It's always a little off-putting when I see people suggest that higher education is just for a job, and discount the importance of the above. Education that teaches you how to work but not how to think is part of how you get people believing things like vaccines are bad.
Trade schools are awesome, not arguing that, but so is critical thinking.
The viewpoint that college is a place for vocational education seems to be a very common viewpoint here on HN, a similar viewpoint seems to be that it's normal and easy to pack your life up and relocate so XYZ city because cost of living is low and wages are high, or some other reason. I guess being a tech-centred community this is to be expected.
I don't know about others, but for me university was an important experience as a place where I could grow as a person. It's a time where you get a few years to figure it all out before you spend the next 45 years working. Even if I could've done a 1 year course and then jumped straight into working full time, I wouldn't want to do that, and I don't think people should necessarily do that. There's more to life than getting a good qualification and getting a job that pays well.
I earn more than practically everybody in my friend group, yet I'm no happier than they are. I'm not more fulfilled in my life because I have a piece of paper that says I'm good with computers.
I don't know about others, but for me university was an important experience as a place where I could grow as a person. It's a time where you get a few years to figure it all out before you spend the next 45 years working. Even if I could've done a 1 year course and then jumped straight into working full time, I wouldn't want to do that, and I don't think people should necessarily do that. There's more to life than getting a good qualification and getting a job that pays well.
I earn more than practically everybody in my friend group, yet I'm no happier than they are. I'm not more fulfilled in my life because I have a piece of paper that says I'm good with computers.
I personally found that 13 (5-18) whole years of education was more than enough time to determine, at least academically, what I wanted to do in life. If you want to 'find yourself' take a gap year and do some self-study or self-reflection, without paying the inflated fees. Heck you can do a degree and still attend lectures in a different course even if you are not enrolled, if you seek to broaden your horizons.
Did you need the university framework to grow as a person, or maybe it was the independence, that allowed that growth?
Did you need the university framework to grow as a person, or maybe it was the independence, that allowed that growth?
Academically I knew what I wanted to do when I finished high school. I wanted to be a software engineer, and I became one.
It sound super fucking corny, but when I left home at 18, I didn't really know who I was as a person. University really helped me find that.
It's not just the independence, but the fact that at university you have a lot of free time, and you have a lot of opportunities to meet and interact with people from different backgrounds, who have different interests to you. I don't want to spend my days hanging out with a bunch of software engineers. I'm actually proud of the fact that in my circle of friends, I don't know anyone who's a software engineer. I actually hate talking about software or computers outside of work, I spend 40+ hours a week doing that shit, I want to do anything that doesn't involve software engineering for the other 128 hours of the week.
It sound super fucking corny, but when I left home at 18, I didn't really know who I was as a person. University really helped me find that.
It's not just the independence, but the fact that at university you have a lot of free time, and you have a lot of opportunities to meet and interact with people from different backgrounds, who have different interests to you. I don't want to spend my days hanging out with a bunch of software engineers. I'm actually proud of the fact that in my circle of friends, I don't know anyone who's a software engineer. I actually hate talking about software or computers outside of work, I spend 40+ hours a week doing that shit, I want to do anything that doesn't involve software engineering for the other 128 hours of the week.
> I'm actually proud of the fact that in my circle of friends, I don't know anyone who's a software engineer.
Would you only know software engineers if you hadn't gone to university? I did not attend university and did not know another software engineer (outside of interacting with some online like on HN) until about 15 years into my career when a good friend started dating one. It does not really seem like the norm to only know software engineers. We're a pretty small segment of the population (~0.8% of the workforce).
Would you only know software engineers if you hadn't gone to university? I did not attend university and did not know another software engineer (outside of interacting with some online like on HN) until about 15 years into my career when a good friend started dating one. It does not really seem like the norm to only know software engineers. We're a pretty small segment of the population (~0.8% of the workforce).
The fact that my friends aren't software engineers is a bit tangental to the fact that I went to university, as I moved country recently and had to build a new circle of friends.
But I do know people who's entire circle of friends is programmers and tech people. I guess if they're happy, then they're happy, but it's not for me. I enjoy my job, but there are other things I enjoy more.
But I do know people who's entire circle of friends is programmers and tech people. I guess if they're happy, then they're happy, but it's not for me. I enjoy my job, but there are other things I enjoy more.
Fair point about your experience but at the same time some people hate(ed) their formal educational experience and/or had to work constantly through college.
The idea that college is a place to find yourself is mostly a statement of immense privilege. I grew up upper middle class (professional parents with masters) and I didn’t spend a moment in college finding myself, I spent most of it working or networking or sleeping. My folks paid for my CS degree from a state school, but even looking at the opportunity cost I’m not sure if anybody but the already wealthy or those at elite institutions can use 4 years to do anything but try to make $180k out of college - and despite all my efforts I failed at that.
> no happier
The other side isn’t better. I make less than most of my friends and they, by virtue of independent wealth or higher income or elite status, are significantly happier than me.
> no happier
The other side isn’t better. I make less than most of my friends and they, by virtue of independent wealth or higher income or elite status, are significantly happier than me.
Something is wrong with your analysis. Lots of below upper middle class folks report "finding themselves" in college, and most people don't earn $180k out of college regardless.
> I make less than most of my friends and they, by virtue of independent wealth or higher income or elite status, are significantly happier than me.
I'm not really in the "money is irrelevant" bucket but this doesn't look like a monetary problem you're facing here.
Seems like you overtuned things and hit a lot of diminishing returns, where you worked hard but didn't see much for it, but now you assume people who work less hard have seen even less, but that's not actually always the case because well we are told the world is unfair quite often, yet in cases like work we for some reason decide not to believe it.
> I make less than most of my friends and they, by virtue of independent wealth or higher income or elite status, are significantly happier than me.
I'm not really in the "money is irrelevant" bucket but this doesn't look like a monetary problem you're facing here.
Seems like you overtuned things and hit a lot of diminishing returns, where you worked hard but didn't see much for it, but now you assume people who work less hard have seen even less, but that's not actually always the case because well we are told the world is unfair quite often, yet in cases like work we for some reason decide not to believe it.
> Seems like you overtuned things and hit a lot of diminishing returns, where you worked hard but didn't see much for it, but now you assume people who work less hard have seen even less
I know for a fact people who have worked less hard have more...but again, mostly at better schools, or have wealthier backgrounds or are just plain luckier than me.
I guess the real problem is I'm still a failure no matter how much effort I put in.
I know for a fact people who have worked less hard have more...but again, mostly at better schools, or have wealthier backgrounds or are just plain luckier than me.
I guess the real problem is I'm still a failure no matter how much effort I put in.
I don't want to sound like some bullshit life coach, but are you really a failure, or are you just measuring success wrong?
Probably both. I"m just angry that I had to work hard for [relatively] little when I could have just done nothing for 4 years and been in the same spot or better.
Maybe it's different in the USA, but in New Zealand, in between my student loan and a part time job, I was able to get by just fine.
Everyone else I know was in the same situation. We spent 4 years partying, hanging out, and having a good time.
I'm aware that it is a position of privilege to be able to say that university is a place to find yourself, but it's not a position of immense privilege at all in New Zealand, or most of the western world for that matter.
These days, I earn enough that I generally don't worry about money. I check my bank balance on payday to see how much I've got, and don't worry about it for the next month. I'm no happier than I was when I had to check my balance every time I went to the shops, when I had $5 to last me 2 days to payday. Sure, I'm less stressed, but I'm not happier.
Everyone else I know was in the same situation. We spent 4 years partying, hanging out, and having a good time.
I'm aware that it is a position of privilege to be able to say that university is a place to find yourself, but it's not a position of immense privilege at all in New Zealand, or most of the western world for that matter.
These days, I earn enough that I generally don't worry about money. I check my bank balance on payday to see how much I've got, and don't worry about it for the next month. I'm no happier than I was when I had to check my balance every time I went to the shops, when I had $5 to last me 2 days to payday. Sure, I'm less stressed, but I'm not happier.
I make more than most of my friends and while it certainly makes my life a lot easier than theirs, it doesn't make me happier than them.
The point is that you can thing "classic college experience" as a package of two things, one is the skills that transfer towards an occupation, and the second is the self-improvement part. But those are two separate things - they're both very nice and useful, however, the first is something that's a need for people to be able to function productively in our society (and thus we might reasonably want to ensure that a large portion of society gets it), and the latter is somewhat of a luxury, which is nice to have but if we can't afford to provide it (and it seems that we can't, not for everyone - at least if you take not only the cost of education but also on living expenses for all these years while not working) then not everybody should get it.
Spending an extra year or two on growing personally and intellectually costs comparably to a luxury car. It'd also be nice for everyone to literally drive a luxury car, but for most people it makes sense to drive something cheaper and more practical, rather than borrowing and spending that much resources on it; and in a similar manner for most people it makes sense to get practical education instead of "buying" in addition to that a year or two of self-improvement that you can't really afford.
Spending an extra year or two on growing personally and intellectually costs comparably to a luxury car. It'd also be nice for everyone to literally drive a luxury car, but for most people it makes sense to drive something cheaper and more practical, rather than borrowing and spending that much resources on it; and in a similar manner for most people it makes sense to get practical education instead of "buying" in addition to that a year or two of self-improvement that you can't really afford.
> Historically, part of college was to help an individual grow personally and intellectually, to learn not just what to think, but how to think clearly, in order to better engage with civil society as an active participant.
Do you mean elementary school? Historically, that is the level of schooling that was provided to all citizens to learn how to think and allow them to become active participants in a civil society. Although it is debatable of how successful it has been at that in modern times.
Historically, college was reserved as a finishing school for the wealthy to learn the social graces of upper-class society. It was only after people started noticing a correlation between wealth and completion of a college degree that the lower members of society started pushing for affordable access, believing that they would also be able to join the upper-class with that experience.
Do you mean elementary school? Historically, that is the level of schooling that was provided to all citizens to learn how to think and allow them to become active participants in a civil society. Although it is debatable of how successful it has been at that in modern times.
Historically, college was reserved as a finishing school for the wealthy to learn the social graces of upper-class society. It was only after people started noticing a correlation between wealth and completion of a college degree that the lower members of society started pushing for affordable access, believing that they would also be able to join the upper-class with that experience.
Perhaps our experiences varied, but I don't recall a lot of emphasis on critical thinking, decision making and figuring things out for myself in elementary school.
If you go back far enough you are absolutely correct, and there certainly is a history of elitism in colleges (and a legacy of discrimination).
However land grant colleges, the higher education act, Deweys ideas on pedagogy, all were premised on the idea that people needed more then rote learning and instruction in the trades to succeed.
I think you are also ignoring the influence of the Progressive educational movement and the G.I. Bill.
If you go back far enough you are absolutely correct, and there certainly is a history of elitism in colleges (and a legacy of discrimination).
However land grant colleges, the higher education act, Deweys ideas on pedagogy, all were premised on the idea that people needed more then rote learning and instruction in the trades to succeed.
I think you are also ignoring the influence of the Progressive educational movement and the G.I. Bill.
The fact that college can teach critical thinking I find highly suspect. Also when exactly does all the critical thinking skills "taught" activate?
Is it after my freshman year, going into my senior year, or only once I have that holy piece of paper (a college degree).
Regarding history...well historically colleges were for wealthy white men/the upper class.
Is it after my freshman year, going into my senior year, or only once I have that holy piece of paper (a college degree).
Regarding history...well historically colleges were for wealthy white men/the upper class.
Critical thinking is important, even in the trades.
But trades are results-driven. The critical thought, business-mindedness, etc have all developed without the 4 year degree precondition for all successful trades.
But trades are results-driven. The critical thought, business-mindedness, etc have all developed without the 4 year degree precondition for all successful trades.
I also think more jobs should be trades. Data analyst (not machine learning, but running SQL queries, etc), marketing, bookkeeping, sales, etc, dont need 4 year degrees. 1 year bootcamp could get people reliable jobs.
What bothers me-- assuming there's still a preference for a full degree over a bootcamp certificate-- is that even clearly career focused degree paths are still burdened down with an "academia" mindset that feels dated and quaint.
The old "college is about being well rounded/learning how to learn" narratives made sense 50-100 years ago, when people were going to university as more a "cultural elite" thing. The rich 20-generation legacy who attends to build his social network, mixing with the top-5%-of-his-class scholarship student and social-climbers powering their way through school, had a different set of needs. Yeah, let them study Latin and great thinkers so they can schmooze in the corridors of power. It was fine when only a few percent of the population went on to university, and the actual degree content was less important than that you got a degree.
However, the kids signing up today-- especially in well-known high-revenue programs (CS, EE, etc) are in it because they either 1) love the subject matter or 2) are bootstrapping their careers. These kids have neither use nor interest in becoming cultured or well-rounded. They'll go further referencing Dennis Ritchie than William Blake.
There might be a case for a writing course or two, but all those 100-level survey humanities or "fun sciences" classes you're taking to hit general studies requirements? I doubt it. Or the requirement some programs have of "at least NNN total credit-hours" even if you can technically hit all the content requirements on fewer.
I'm surprised you aren't seeing legitimate universities responding to the market and producing a 2-3 year BSc program, stripped of almost all general-studies courses. You want to fight tuition increases? Get kids out in 2.5 years!
I assume the endgame of this would be that a lot of literature and philosophy professors will be out of work, but this surely leads into some sort of punchline about them working at Starbucks..
The old "college is about being well rounded/learning how to learn" narratives made sense 50-100 years ago, when people were going to university as more a "cultural elite" thing. The rich 20-generation legacy who attends to build his social network, mixing with the top-5%-of-his-class scholarship student and social-climbers powering their way through school, had a different set of needs. Yeah, let them study Latin and great thinkers so they can schmooze in the corridors of power. It was fine when only a few percent of the population went on to university, and the actual degree content was less important than that you got a degree.
However, the kids signing up today-- especially in well-known high-revenue programs (CS, EE, etc) are in it because they either 1) love the subject matter or 2) are bootstrapping their careers. These kids have neither use nor interest in becoming cultured or well-rounded. They'll go further referencing Dennis Ritchie than William Blake.
There might be a case for a writing course or two, but all those 100-level survey humanities or "fun sciences" classes you're taking to hit general studies requirements? I doubt it. Or the requirement some programs have of "at least NNN total credit-hours" even if you can technically hit all the content requirements on fewer.
I'm surprised you aren't seeing legitimate universities responding to the market and producing a 2-3 year BSc program, stripped of almost all general-studies courses. You want to fight tuition increases? Get kids out in 2.5 years!
I assume the endgame of this would be that a lot of literature and philosophy professors will be out of work, but this surely leads into some sort of punchline about them working at Starbucks..
> I'm surprised you aren't seeing legitimate universities responding to the market and producing a 2-3 year BSc program, stripped of almost all general-studies courses.
Funnily enough this is how it works in the UK. All BSc/BA degree are 3 years long without any GenEd requirements.
Funnily enough this is how it works in the UK. All BSc/BA degree are 3 years long without any GenEd requirements.
Actually, that is generally only true in England and Wales. Scottish universities generally have 4-year programs with Gen Ed requirements. It's the system the US system is based on.
> However, the kids signing up today-- especially in well-known high-revenue programs (CS, EE, etc) are in it because they either 1) love the subject matter or 2) are bootstrapping their careers. These kids have neither use nor interest in becoming cultured or well-rounded. They'll go further referencing Dennis Ritchie than William Blake.
Except it's a pretty common lament that most people who major in CS/EE/whatever don't actually learn the skills in college that they use daily on the job. Honestly, the most important thing I got out of my EE degree was comfort reading research papers and confidence that I can learn whatever I want with time and effort.
Except it's a pretty common lament that most people who major in CS/EE/whatever don't actually learn the skills in college that they use daily on the job. Honestly, the most important thing I got out of my EE degree was comfort reading research papers and confidence that I can learn whatever I want with time and effort.
I find it funny that these numbers are not available. In our free education system (Denmark), almost all of this data is freely available, also as the government, want students to make an informed choice. So most schools its easy to get graduation rate, salary estimates and even how many from the last class are employed, and how many in relevant fields.
Oh indeed. Found something here [0] from the Education and Research Ministry.
My Excel does not really like that file though.
[0] https://ufm.dk/uddannelse/statistik-og-analyser/faerdiguddan...
My Excel does not really like that file though.
[0] https://ufm.dk/uddannelse/statistik-og-analyser/faerdiguddan...
I work at a college and we are required by the federal government to report all kinds of numbers. I know grad rate is among them, and I am 99% sure it is broken down by major. Those reports are public.
Where can I find them? Interested in mining the data
The Department of Education College Scorecard has a great deal of data which they make openly available: https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/
I don't know where it would be in mine-able format. There is this for instance: https://www.smcvt.edu/on-campus/offices-and-services/institu....
It's odd that no one has addressed the issues of the rising cost of higher education. Once upon a time you could work a full-time job during the summer and part-time during the school year to pay for your education and graduate debt free. This wasn't that long ago either, I paid for my college education in the late 90s in cash I earned.
If you paid for school yourself with money earned through employment in the late 90s, my guess is you either majored in STEM, had a lot of AP or other credits going in, or did your first 2 years at a community college (or, possibly more than one of these). I’d also wager you went to an in-state public school. Am I right? If so, that probably makes you the exception rather than the rule.
I attended an in-state public university and paid the full in-state tuition from 1998-2001. I worked a retail position at an office supply store for 2 years before taking a help desk position at a small company. With both jobs I worked part-time during fall and spring semesters and full-time during the summer to pay for tuition.
> If so, that probably makes you the exception rather than the rule.
So you're saying the majority of people seeking higher education are going out of state or to private schools?
Enrollment in public/state colleges and universities outpaces private schools three to one.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enroll... https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp
> If so, that probably makes you the exception rather than the rule.
So you're saying the majority of people seeking higher education are going out of state or to private schools?
Enrollment in public/state colleges and universities outpaces private schools three to one.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enroll... https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp
"The administration of President Donald Trump just made it easier for for-profit colleges to get away with making fake promises about things like graduation rates and job placements."
This is where I stopped reading. Pretty much the first sentence. False advertising has been a problem for at least two decades now, mostly in Law and nothing has been done about it. People started talking about it only recently after the rich kids got affected by the false advertising; their parents spend $200k-$300k on a Law degree with a Bar test only to find out that their kids can't get a job that pays more than $50k because there's been an abundance of lawyers for about twenty years now.
Same goes for IT and all sorts of BS degrees ala marketing, communications, david beckham studies etc... besides you don't need somebody to tell you:
"Hey, save your money you don't yet have, that degree is useless! You can do that without having one."
You only need half a brain cell to figure this for yourself. It's not brain surgery and if you do need someone to tell you that, then you really do need a hard lesson.
This is where I stopped reading. Pretty much the first sentence. False advertising has been a problem for at least two decades now, mostly in Law and nothing has been done about it. People started talking about it only recently after the rich kids got affected by the false advertising; their parents spend $200k-$300k on a Law degree with a Bar test only to find out that their kids can't get a job that pays more than $50k because there's been an abundance of lawyers for about twenty years now.
Same goes for IT and all sorts of BS degrees ala marketing, communications, david beckham studies etc... besides you don't need somebody to tell you:
"Hey, save your money you don't yet have, that degree is useless! You can do that without having one."
You only need half a brain cell to figure this for yourself. It's not brain surgery and if you do need someone to tell you that, then you really do need a hard lesson.
False advertising for everything is pretty much the norm. I get fatigued just navigating through all of the rackets out there.
I do not know how people who skip the fine print manage to survive these days.
I do not know how people who skip the fine print manage to survive these days.
*advertising IS pretty much the norm for everything these days. we are being flooded with ads, but we're often selling ourselves as well... ad-based world this is..
The U.S. would do itself a huge favour by allowing student debt to be bankruptable. College prices can rise infinitely because there is an unlimited supply of AAA+ debt to feed it. Drop that rating to reality and investors don't buy the debt, loans don't get originated, demand for college at $250k dries up.
Who is going to lend tens of thousands of dollars to an 18 year old with no income, no assets, and no credit?
The HN reality distortion field is all kids will use their Stanford CS degree to work in tech for huge salaries. The reality is at least half of kids don't use their degree anyway. My waitress at the local restaurant isn't any better at waitressing because she has small mortgage sized student debt; in a hypothetical world where she couldn't get that education degree paid for, she'd merely be a happier less stressed waitress, which probably would result in better life for everyone.
The concept of everyone should go to college is extremely Boomer; they're dying off and their beliefs are dying off with them. Likewise just wait until "Real estate only goes up!" dies out. Or watching TV pro sports being taken seriously as a hobby. Then you factor in demographic replacement; if most young kids are not native, they will not have legacy native beliefs. It doesn't matter what white hippies held dear in 1970, if a significant fraction of the kids are not legacy demographic. Demographic elimination means cultural elimination and nothing says "white boomer" quite like "Everybody gotta go to college"
The concept of everyone should go to college is extremely Boomer; they're dying off and their beliefs are dying off with them. Likewise just wait until "Real estate only goes up!" dies out. Or watching TV pro sports being taken seriously as a hobby. Then you factor in demographic replacement; if most young kids are not native, they will not have legacy native beliefs. It doesn't matter what white hippies held dear in 1970, if a significant fraction of the kids are not legacy demographic. Demographic elimination means cultural elimination and nothing says "white boomer" quite like "Everybody gotta go to college"
A high school diploma used to be a signal that you were a reasonably educated person who could read and add things and manage to get by in most low or medium skill jobs. Today it doesn’t even signal that you are a barely functional adult. That’s sadly what college has become: the semi reliable signal that a person has even a remote chance of contributing to society. I wish there were signals that didn’t cost thousands of dollars but I don’t see any.
This the the parent comment argument. No unlimited credit, no unbounded high prices.
Alternatively cap un-bankruptable dept to a reasonable amount, say 15k/yr or something. It's pretty much how it works here in Quebec Canada and very few students end up with more than 40k CAN in un-bankruptable dept.
Alternatively cap un-bankruptable dept to a reasonable amount, say 15k/yr or something. It's pretty much how it works here in Quebec Canada and very few students end up with more than 40k CAN in un-bankruptable dept.
The federal government of the United States of America.
I feel like your question is supposed to be making a rhetorical point but it has an extremely literal answer as of a few years ago.
I feel like your question is supposed to be making a rhetorical point but it has an extremely literal answer as of a few years ago.
> Who is going to lend tens of thousands of dollars to an 18 year old with no income, no assets, and no credit?
Since the elimination of the Federal Family Education Loan program in 2010, there has been only one legally-possible lender for Federally-guaranteed student loans.
And they aren't a for-profit corporation, or an entity that evidences much concern for babalncing spending and revenue.
Since the elimination of the Federal Family Education Loan program in 2010, there has been only one legally-possible lender for Federally-guaranteed student loans.
And they aren't a for-profit corporation, or an entity that evidences much concern for babalncing spending and revenue.
Ideally any company or organization that requires educated employees.
College shouldn’t cost tens of thousands of dollars to begin with; that’s part of the OP’s claim.
That's how supply and demand works though. When people don't think the ROI is there prices will drop.
Admission to a to school seemed like the only path to wealth when I was growing up. I don't think I can make that same claim for my kids.
For whatever I have saved for them I'll offer to put it towards college or give it to them when they turn 20 to start a business.
Admission to a to school seemed like the only path to wealth when I was growing up. I don't think I can make that same claim for my kids.
For whatever I have saved for them I'll offer to put it towards college or give it to them when they turn 20 to start a business.
The supply/demand equation for college is broken precisely because student loans are can’t be discharged. Every student essentially has an infinitely deep pocket to borrow against so colleges continue to raise prices.
Sure, loans help increase prices just as with cars and housing. But the supply/demand equation is still the same. A high number of high school graduates want those few freshman seats at top colleges and are willing to pay X over the next 10-20 years to attend. College prices will rise until they hit that number. The structure of the loan (interest rate, terms, etc.) is factored into the value of X.
The problem comes when the actual value of graduating from a top college does not equal the expected value. That's where you get people making poor economic decisions (or when they don't read the interest rate on the loan). The people who have to pay $5k/month in student loans, but make $20k/month at their job are getting the deal they expected. But the people who knew they'd have to pay $5k/month but can only find a $8k/month job are having buyers remorse.
The problem comes when the actual value of graduating from a top college does not equal the expected value. That's where you get people making poor economic decisions (or when they don't read the interest rate on the loan). The people who have to pay $5k/month in student loans, but make $20k/month at their job are getting the deal they expected. But the people who knew they'd have to pay $5k/month but can only find a $8k/month job are having buyers remorse.
You can't compare student loans to car/housing loans. If I only make $50k/yr, there is no bank on the planet that will give me a loan for a $300k ferrari.
If I make a poor economic decisions, and choose to buy a ferrari, I'd also have to a find a bank willing to support my poor economic decisions. Naturally any bank will not take me seriously how much I plead with them on my ability to pay them back. That changes if I the bank is guaranteed by the government to get their money bank.
How much would a Toyota Corolla cost if the government was willing to fully back any car loan? Why wouldn't Toyota charge $500,000 for a Corolla if banks didn't care if their borrowers couldn't pay that amount back?
The short of it is people who would normally be completely priced out of a college education are now enabled by banks who give them fiscally irresponsible loans because they know the government is guaranteed to pay them back, whether or not the borrower can pay or not. If these loans didn't exist, there would be fewer people willing to pay $50k and schools would be forced to lower prices or go defunct.
If I make a poor economic decisions, and choose to buy a ferrari, I'd also have to a find a bank willing to support my poor economic decisions. Naturally any bank will not take me seriously how much I plead with them on my ability to pay them back. That changes if I the bank is guaranteed by the government to get their money bank.
How much would a Toyota Corolla cost if the government was willing to fully back any car loan? Why wouldn't Toyota charge $500,000 for a Corolla if banks didn't care if their borrowers couldn't pay that amount back?
The short of it is people who would normally be completely priced out of a college education are now enabled by banks who give them fiscally irresponsible loans because they know the government is guaranteed to pay them back, whether or not the borrower can pay or not. If these loans didn't exist, there would be fewer people willing to pay $50k and schools would be forced to lower prices or go defunct.
They are only willing to pay X because X=Y+Z, where Y is what they can afford and Z is the max loan they can get. If they couldn’t get that loan Z, market forces would cause college costs to approach Y.
True, but then only rich parents would be able to send their kids to college, because they'd be able to win all the bidding wars.
There are only so many rich parents. Either (1) schools will close down, or (2) schools will lower prices. I'm willing to bet that the answer will be (2) for the vast majority of schools. Schools will not opt to stay open with 60k/yr tuitions and 0 undergrads.
We don’t have to speculate. There was a time before the federal student loan program and tuition prices were roughly 10% of their current price.
Who is going to lend tens of thousands of dollars to an 18 year old with no income, no assets, and no credit?
So, just to be clear 18 year olds getting tens of thousands in dischargeable loans is ridiculous, but 18 year olds getting tens of thousands in non-dischargeable loans makes total sense?
I mean, I understand why if you are a person making money off student loans, the latter is a great situation to have. But for anyone else, I'm not sure I agree that it's something we should fight for.
So, just to be clear 18 year olds getting tens of thousands in dischargeable loans is ridiculous, but 18 year olds getting tens of thousands in non-dischargeable loans makes total sense?
I mean, I understand why if you are a person making money off student loans, the latter is a great situation to have. But for anyone else, I'm not sure I agree that it's something we should fight for.
> I mean, I understand why if you are a person making money off student loans, the latter is a great situation to have. But for anyone else, I'm not sure I agree that it's something we should fight for.
But when a student needs a loan to pay for their education, the person lending money is more important than everyone else. If you are not going to incentivize lending money for college debt and instead going to add risks (of not getting paid back because discharging loans is now easy), then you will have less loans in the first place.
But when a student needs a loan to pay for their education, the person lending money is more important than everyone else. If you are not going to incentivize lending money for college debt and instead going to add risks (of not getting paid back because discharging loans is now easy), then you will have less loans in the first place.
> But when a student needs a loan to pay for their education
When a student needs money to pay for their education, why are we extending loans rather than need-based grants?
When a student needs money to pay for their education, why are we extending loans rather than need-based grants?
I think you're missing the point.
I believe they intend to mean that we should fix this problem without irreparably screwing over an entire generation of potential college students
I believe they intend to mean that we should fix this problem without irreparably screwing over an entire generation of potential college students
I think the system is already screwing over an entire generation of college students, so too late for that one.
> The U.S. would do itself a huge favour by allowing student debt to be bankruptable.
Student loan debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy, it's just more difficult than other unsecured debt.
But the US would do better to just stop having federal student loans at all, in favor of need-based and service-based grants, rather than tweaking the terms under which loans are dischargeable.
Student loan debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy, it's just more difficult than other unsecured debt.
But the US would do better to just stop having federal student loans at all, in favor of need-based and service-based grants, rather than tweaking the terms under which loans are dischargeable.
[deleted]
Used to be. Doctors and lawyers would go through a decade of school on loan and then discharge it all and start a lucrative practice. That's part of how we got here.
Where are you getting this information from? Because nothing I am able to see points to people discharging their loans happening on a massive scale.
The only "news article" [1] I can find that references this mentions 0.3% of student loans were discharged through bankruptcy in 1977 [2].
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/history-student-loans-bankrup...
[2] http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_s...
Seems be to be some serious revisionist history going on...
The only "news article" [1] I can find that references this mentions 0.3% of student loans were discharged through bankruptcy in 1977 [2].
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/history-student-loans-bankrup...
[2] http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_s...
Seems be to be some serious revisionist history going on...
Purely anecdotal, but I have a friend who went to veterinary school. The school had a literal class teaching all vet students to use IBR forgiveness to get their debt discharged.
It's not quite as abusive as what could have happened when student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy- it takes 20 years and you're taxed on the forgiveness- but I thought it was quite perverse that the institution charging towering sums of money is teaching the students in blanket fashion how to avoid paying it off.
It's not quite as abusive as what could have happened when student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy- it takes 20 years and you're taxed on the forgiveness- but I thought it was quite perverse that the institution charging towering sums of money is teaching the students in blanket fashion how to avoid paying it off.
[deleted]
>The only "news article" [1] I can find that references this mentions 0.3% of student loans were discharged through bankruptcy in 1977 [2].
It actually says something much stronger - it says that 0.3% of the value of all federal student loans given before 1977 had been discharged through bankruptcy, not in 1977. In 1977 wouldn't make sense because the amendments making it impossible to discharge student loan debt through bankruptcy were made in 1976.
It actually says something much stronger - it says that 0.3% of the value of all federal student loans given before 1977 had been discharged through bankruptcy, not in 1977. In 1977 wouldn't make sense because the amendments making it impossible to discharge student loan debt through bankruptcy were made in 1976.
Seems be to be some serious revisionist history going on...
Just because it’s not a link on the internet doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
It was pretty much common knowledge when I was in school. I only knew a few pre-meds, but it certainly came up as a discussion topic more than once.
Just because it’s not a link on the internet doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
It was pretty much common knowledge when I was in school. I only knew a few pre-meds, but it certainly came up as a discussion topic more than once.
Just because someone talked about potentially doing it doesn't mean it's true either. If it was three quarters of all 20 year old's would have quit school and worked on their band full time.
And just because something is common knowledge doesn't mean it's true, especially when you start taking about common knowledge within a group.
You don't have to link to a source on the internet either, citing a book or newspaper article would be sufficient.
You don't have to link to a source on the internet either, citing a book or newspaper article would be sufficient.
Some time ago I was dating an American med student - filing bankruptcy was basically her plan once she is done with studies and residence. She mentioned it's fine to take a hit for ~7 years as she won't be earning much during that time period, and then it should pick up quickly.
It's been effectively impossible to do that since 1976, so while that may have been her plan, I'm not certain she would have been able to follow through.
The doctors in my family all graduated from med school with less than 20k total student loan debt. School was much cheaper 30 years ago
Adjusted for inflation: $20,000 in 1988 → $42,601.69 in 2018
Today, you can expect at least $200,000 for 4 years of medical school.
And that's just for tuition. That doesn't including living expenses.
42k in student loan debt isn't crippling though. That's still a small amount of loan debt for getting an MD.
Bankrupcy is no way to start a legal career. It may even get you disbarred should you do it in bad faith.
Can you substantiate this claim? "Doctors and lawyers who strategically go bankrupt to avoid paying student debt" sound like made up boogeymen... boogeymen who perfectly justify parts of the US' 2005 bankruptcy reform.
(I think) I'm a fan of getting rid of subsidized loans for education.
It has only made the cost of education go up rather than make college affordable.
But on the flip side, what can be expected from people with no ability to afford college at the new price?
Ive been told over and over that my personal situation working full time on the midnight shift and going to college is 'unrealistic' for everyone to do.
So whats the solution? Get rid of the loans until college cut the cost? What happens to the first few years of lower and middle class kids who cant afford to go to college?
It has only made the cost of education go up rather than make college affordable.
But on the flip side, what can be expected from people with no ability to afford college at the new price?
Ive been told over and over that my personal situation working full time on the midnight shift and going to college is 'unrealistic' for everyone to do.
So whats the solution? Get rid of the loans until college cut the cost? What happens to the first few years of lower and middle class kids who cant afford to go to college?
The solution is to stop orienting our society around institutional learning. We have a global information network. We need to orient society around individual learning, not academia.
Kids living at home and taking (mostly) pre-programmed online courses should be the norm. It is vastly cheaper, and can deliver more consistently better results.
Kids living at home and taking (mostly) pre-programmed online courses should be the norm. It is vastly cheaper, and can deliver more consistently better results.
I like this mentality, but there needs to be education around fact finding and logic. (Formerly the scientific method, but I think that got hijacked with PhD politics)
Me and my brother are building a dishwasher but he seems to jump into solutions rather than determining the necessary inputs and equations to prove them outputs will meet our design specifications.
And my brother is an engineer.
In a few weeks/months I feel like I can learn any subject with enough googling and hard work. However, without this ultra critical mindset, I can imagine a child would get lost among too much information.
Me and my brother are building a dishwasher but he seems to jump into solutions rather than determining the necessary inputs and equations to prove them outputs will meet our design specifications.
And my brother is an engineer.
In a few weeks/months I feel like I can learn any subject with enough googling and hard work. However, without this ultra critical mindset, I can imagine a child would get lost among too much information.
> but there needs to be education around fact finding and logic.
I picked up that mentality while being involved with the family farm as a young child.
The elementary and secondary systems came of age when the vast majority of the population also had significant involvement in agriculture. One would imagine that kind of thinking would be pushed at those early school levels, long before one reaches the typical post-secondary age, but you are suggesting that is not the case. It may have been assumed that one would already pick that up at home given the circumstances of the time and we haven't looked back since?
Has college become the replacement for agrarian exposure in our modern urbanized society?
I picked up that mentality while being involved with the family farm as a young child.
The elementary and secondary systems came of age when the vast majority of the population also had significant involvement in agriculture. One would imagine that kind of thinking would be pushed at those early school levels, long before one reaches the typical post-secondary age, but you are suggesting that is not the case. It may have been assumed that one would already pick that up at home given the circumstances of the time and we haven't looked back since?
Has college become the replacement for agrarian exposure in our modern urbanized society?
The problem is credentials. If you have a college degree in X, you can prove it to me. If you lived at home and took pre-programmed online courses, I need a way of determining whether you actually know what those courses should have taught you.
Of course, a college degree doesn't really tell me that, either. If you can solve this problem, you could make online education superior to college education (at least in terms of value to an employer).
Of course, a college degree doesn't really tell me that, either. If you can solve this problem, you could make online education superior to college education (at least in terms of value to an employer).
> The problem is credentials. If you have a college degree in X, you can prove it to me. If you lived at home and took pre-programmed online courses, I need a way of determining whether you actually know what those courses should have taught you.
There is already an approach that addresses this: competency-based degree programs.
There is already an approach that addresses this: competency-based degree programs.
Are there competency-based degree programs that grant a degree that is generally recognized (by employers and/or grad schools)?
In that most employers (and grad schools) generally recognize degrees from accredited institutions, yes.
Obviously, there aren't any with the prestige of top traditional schools.
Obviously, there aren't any with the prestige of top traditional schools.
Could you name a few of these accredited competency-based institutions?
Here's a few, there are more:
Western Governors University
Brandman University MyPath
Southern New Hampshire University College for America
Western Governors University
Brandman University MyPath
Southern New Hampshire University College for America
Thanks!
All you would need is a verified testing center program.
There are more libraries in the USA than McDonalds. Turn them into testing centers.
There are more libraries in the USA than McDonalds. Turn them into testing centers.
Right, a verified testing program that the bulk of employers recognize as valid, which is slightly harder than what you said.
And libraries probably want to continue to be libraries, rather than becoming testing centers.
And libraries probably want to continue to be libraries, rather than becoming testing centers.
My guess is the meme that higher ed is something you only do between 18-22 will disappear.
Also the meme that all blue collar jobs require a higher ed degree, such as bartender, waitress, secretary, day care worker, receptionist, all of that will go back to "high school grad" as a job req.
Of course with prevailing long term trends, "having a full time job" or "having medical care" will soon be a luxury few will experience.
Also the meme that all blue collar jobs require a higher ed degree, such as bartender, waitress, secretary, day care worker, receptionist, all of that will go back to "high school grad" as a job req.
Of course with prevailing long term trends, "having a full time job" or "having medical care" will soon be a luxury few will experience.
At state schools, the sharp increase in tuition costs over the last decade have had just as much to do (if not more) with a corresponding decrease in state funding. State legislatures all over this country -- starting with the 2008 recession but never quite stopping -- have cut support to these institutions. Often schools raise tuition in response, because many of them have mandates to serve X number of in-state students or have Y programs or perform research at threshold Z.
(The best part is when the politicians who voted for the cut in funding turn around a year later and say why are you raising tuition?!)
This is a vicious cycle, and it only serves one class of people: students who are born into well-off families who can afford tuition at these rates out of pocket. Those who aren't have to take out larger and larger loans just to attempt to complete a degree. It's really sad, because it doesn't need to be this way.
(The best part is when the politicians who voted for the cut in funding turn around a year later and say why are you raising tuition?!)
This is a vicious cycle, and it only serves one class of people: students who are born into well-off families who can afford tuition at these rates out of pocket. Those who aren't have to take out larger and larger loans just to attempt to complete a degree. It's really sad, because it doesn't need to be this way.
Actually, I'm a fan of accountability, so no. What should happen is the easy loans should be eliminated altogether, which would get Wall Street out of higher ed and return things to a more sane basis. These schools ran away so hard with all that money and put up outrageous numbers of buildings and ran other expensive projects that have led to out of control costs and diminishing returns for actual students.
Bill Clinton presided over the changes that led to this mess. I know many of you are too young to know that, but Bill Clinton was not a great leader of the USA, he was a manipulator, interested in maximizing gains for his politically connected allies.
Bill Clinton presided over the changes that led to this mess. I know many of you are too young to know that, but Bill Clinton was not a great leader of the USA, he was a manipulator, interested in maximizing gains for his politically connected allies.
Likewise healthcare. The fact that insurance companies exist who will pay for a $250000 procedure guarantees that those prices continue. If the customers of healthcare (patients) were the payers, those ridiculous prices would vanish.
It's almost like our health system consists of a small collection of companies playing fast and loose with each other's money, trying to extract as much from each other as possible, and the output of all of this graft (not including co-pay and deductible) is average healthcare at sky-high prices.
It would require huge political will to go against the existing system. I'm excited about Lambda School (https://lambdaschool.com). If they are successful, there should be lots of investors trying out similar models and destroying the existing system.
One problem here is that, at least in my humble opinion, education should ultimately be (or trend towards becoming) a basic human right. Repackaging debt as wage garnishment while making job placement easier makes the job market more efficient, certainly. I can understand why people are excited. It doesn't fix the underlying structural issues in the American education system.
I agree. I think the US system is terrible. We should not stop providing public education merely because someone achieves the age of 18 or 12th grade. But I don't see how it can be fixed politically.
In a functioning education system (which the US system arguably isn't), 12 years of schooling is more than sufficient to produce a well rounded person capable of being a productive and engaging member of civil society. It is not clear to me what the societal benefit is beyond that.
I can agree that college is becoming a band-aid to make up for the serious problems found in earlier years. To the point that, in recognition of this, many now call people who have not graduated from college 'uneducated', which is pretty sad when you think that 12 years of completed schooling hasn't provided an education. But the solution for healing a wound isn't to provide a more affordable band-aid. It is to address what is causing the wound in the first place.
It need not be a difficult fix politically. Nobody, who isn't emotionally or financially invested in college being a band-aid, is going to argue against educating our youth in the K-12 system. The only roadblock is getting someone to think about the issue, as the advertising done by the colleges has left us believing that education simply isn't provided any other way other than through colleges.
I can agree that college is becoming a band-aid to make up for the serious problems found in earlier years. To the point that, in recognition of this, many now call people who have not graduated from college 'uneducated', which is pretty sad when you think that 12 years of completed schooling hasn't provided an education. But the solution for healing a wound isn't to provide a more affordable band-aid. It is to address what is causing the wound in the first place.
It need not be a difficult fix politically. Nobody, who isn't emotionally or financially invested in college being a band-aid, is going to argue against educating our youth in the K-12 system. The only roadblock is getting someone to think about the issue, as the advertising done by the colleges has left us believing that education simply isn't provided any other way other than through colleges.
Do you think that this special value of 12 years will be the proper amount of public education forever? It seems to me that as robots and software take more of the lower valued jobs, we will need to expect more education for a citizen to be able to contribute. Institutions will have to adapt.
12 years of schooling is more than sufficient. That does not mean that 12 is the magic number exactly. But yes, I believe that <=12 will remain sufficient for public schooling forever. Not to be confused with education. There is no timeframe on education. Education never stops.
Robots and software actually make the world simpler. When we were an agrarian society, farmers had to know how to do basically everything imaginable to be able to be productive. It took a lifetime of training, starting as soon as you were old enough to walk, in order to learn the ropes and take in the deep knowledge passed from generation to generation. Industrialization simplified contributions so that one only had to specialize, negating the need to be there from birth. The information revolution simplified things further still. Now we have teenagers who are starting highly successful software businesses after spending a few months in front of a computer. The next revolution, whatever it may be, will only make contributions even more accessible, just as each time before.
Robots and software actually make the world simpler. When we were an agrarian society, farmers had to know how to do basically everything imaginable to be able to be productive. It took a lifetime of training, starting as soon as you were old enough to walk, in order to learn the ropes and take in the deep knowledge passed from generation to generation. Industrialization simplified contributions so that one only had to specialize, negating the need to be there from birth. The information revolution simplified things further still. Now we have teenagers who are starting highly successful software businesses after spending a few months in front of a computer. The next revolution, whatever it may be, will only make contributions even more accessible, just as each time before.
I like that optimism. I can also imagine a future where anybody can contribute. But I know plenty of people right now who are wondering if they should get a master's degree instead of stopping at a bachelor's degree in order to get a job that can pay off their education debt.
It wouldn’t make much of a difference because the vast majority of student loans are issued by the federal government and not underwritten.
This seems to come up fairly often. I don’t think many people are aware of the enormous size of the state banking sector in the US between educational loans and continued dominance of the residential mortgage market.
This seems to come up fairly often. I don’t think many people are aware of the enormous size of the state banking sector in the US between educational loans and continued dominance of the residential mortgage market.
This is true. About fifty percent of federal financial assets are student loans (which terrifies me).
However on the margin it would make a huge difference. The most expensive programs require a mix of federal loans and federally subsidized loans. There are a few changes the federal government could make to not back loans data clearly show are going to be bad, and if those loans aren’t federally subsized they’re not happening. Or, perhaps, worst case scenario the interest rate becomes extreme.
There are a lot of moving pieces.
However on the margin it would make a huge difference. The most expensive programs require a mix of federal loans and federally subsidized loans. There are a few changes the federal government could make to not back loans data clearly show are going to be bad, and if those loans aren’t federally subsized they’re not happening. Or, perhaps, worst case scenario the interest rate becomes extreme.
There are a lot of moving pieces.
The author's position is that the only reason to go to college is to learn academic subjects and obtain a job when graduating. If the same logic were applied to automobiles, there'd be no reason to choose a Lexus over a Nissan. College is about the whole experience: friends, contacts, travel, opportunities, and yeah, for some, it just comes down to wanting to to go to a place that "doesn't suck." As for innate ability - well, students were selected based on the college wanting specific types of students, largely because they want to create an unsuckish experience for the students. (There are unmotivated, immature, and/or improperly-backgrounded people in every class, but is it just a couple, or a majority?)
As for the focused universities, the ones that bill themselves solely as get-smart-get-job/promotion/whatever, and that fail to deliver, those must be held accountable. If I bought a "Cheaperson S Hatchback" and it consistently failed to take me to work, and a significant portion of other Cheaperson owners reported the same thing, then the problem is in the car, not me, and Cheaperson should be held accountable.
As for the focused universities, the ones that bill themselves solely as get-smart-get-job/promotion/whatever, and that fail to deliver, those must be held accountable. If I bought a "Cheaperson S Hatchback" and it consistently failed to take me to work, and a significant portion of other Cheaperson owners reported the same thing, then the problem is in the car, not me, and Cheaperson should be held accountable.
College is about the whole experience: friends, contacts, travel, opportunities, and yeah, for some, it just comes down to wanting to to go to a place that "doesn't suck."
And that’s a luxury that only a few have. I’m sure most parents wouldn’t get into thousands of dollars of student loan debt for that reason.
I can’t imagine a world where it makes sense to get a luxury car and get in thousands of debt before you have a good job either.
And that’s a luxury that only a few have. I’m sure most parents wouldn’t get into thousands of dollars of student loan debt for that reason.
I can’t imagine a world where it makes sense to get a luxury car and get in thousands of debt before you have a good job either.
Eh, even most normal colleges are pretty honest in their ads compared to game design ones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAFLfx3mvIg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRWvfMLl4ho
But seriously, the fact of the matter is:
1. Too many people go to college, so its original value (as a status indicator) is now virtually non existent
2. It's too expensive, so unless a good job is a near guaranteed outcome, people will laden with debt after going.
3. Most people and most jobs don't need college, and the push to send everyone to college has led to rampant degree inflation in terms of academic requirements.
The only solution to fix that would be to somehow get employers to stop caring about degrees, to make it less 'necessary' for many people, and to encourage less people to attend for the career 'boost'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAFLfx3mvIg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRWvfMLl4ho
But seriously, the fact of the matter is:
1. Too many people go to college, so its original value (as a status indicator) is now virtually non existent
2. It's too expensive, so unless a good job is a near guaranteed outcome, people will laden with debt after going.
3. Most people and most jobs don't need college, and the push to send everyone to college has led to rampant degree inflation in terms of academic requirements.
The only solution to fix that would be to somehow get employers to stop caring about degrees, to make it less 'necessary' for many people, and to encourage less people to attend for the career 'boost'.
> "Too many people go to college"
This is complete claptrap, would you also say "Too many people go to secondary school"? How about "Too many people go to elementary"?
There is vast value in an educated workforce and "too many" is a nonsense reason for why university level education shouldn't be available for all.
This is complete claptrap, would you also say "Too many people go to secondary school"? How about "Too many people go to elementary"?
There is vast value in an educated workforce and "too many" is a nonsense reason for why university level education shouldn't be available for all.
The second part of the statement clarified intent. It's not a moral judgement, it's conditional failure to fulfill the purpose of differentiation.
If education was the main motivation for college rather then trying to prove to employers you are a more competitive employee then your peers, I feel the system would look a lot different and not have nearly the same balooning cost problem.
If education was the main motivation for college rather then trying to prove to employers you are a more competitive employee then your peers, I feel the system would look a lot different and not have nearly the same balooning cost problem.
That sounds good in writing, but it doesn’t seem to work in real life for some reason.
Two of the cities I’ve lived in have been places with several large businesses focused on a single non-factory industry. They could never get enough workers, so demand for labor was high and because of that so were wages.
The prevailing attitude among the very local teens (2nd generation plus) was “Why should I go to college when I can make $xx/hour working in the industry?”
Their parents also worked in the industry and thus didn’t push their children to go to college.
The mentality is so pervasive that at a community event I saw an industry table set up with a big banner reading “Why you don’t need college,” and nobody else thought that was odd.
The result is that most of the locals are pretty dumb. They make poor decisions in their personal lives, which has an impact on the entire city, it’s policing policies and it’s healthcare system.
Non-industry businesses are reluctant to move to those cities because they can’t find educated workers, so the economy can’t diversify.
I saw a tech startup hiring people straight out of high school simply because that’s all it could find. Not surprisingly, the company failed in under a year.
It’s a shame that college is so expensive, and there should be a way to fix that. But in my experience, employers wanting degrees helps society ad a whole because it encourages more people to seek higher education who would otherwise be complacent.
Two of the cities I’ve lived in have been places with several large businesses focused on a single non-factory industry. They could never get enough workers, so demand for labor was high and because of that so were wages.
The prevailing attitude among the very local teens (2nd generation plus) was “Why should I go to college when I can make $xx/hour working in the industry?”
Their parents also worked in the industry and thus didn’t push their children to go to college.
The mentality is so pervasive that at a community event I saw an industry table set up with a big banner reading “Why you don’t need college,” and nobody else thought that was odd.
The result is that most of the locals are pretty dumb. They make poor decisions in their personal lives, which has an impact on the entire city, it’s policing policies and it’s healthcare system.
Non-industry businesses are reluctant to move to those cities because they can’t find educated workers, so the economy can’t diversify.
I saw a tech startup hiring people straight out of high school simply because that’s all it could find. Not surprisingly, the company failed in under a year.
It’s a shame that college is so expensive, and there should be a way to fix that. But in my experience, employers wanting degrees helps society ad a whole because it encourages more people to seek higher education who would otherwise be complacent.
> The result is that most of the locals are pretty dumb.
It is concerning to me that after approximately 18 years on earth and 12 years of schooling that the locals are still dumb. But as little as two to four more years of school can transform them into smart, well rounded, people capable of understanding complex social issues related to their city and beyond.
It seems the real shame is not that college is expensive, but that we've wasted the time of our youngsters.
It is concerning to me that after approximately 18 years on earth and 12 years of schooling that the locals are still dumb. But as little as two to four more years of school can transform them into smart, well rounded, people capable of understanding complex social issues related to their city and beyond.
It seems the real shame is not that college is expensive, but that we've wasted the time of our youngsters.
It seems the real shame is not that college is expensive, but that we've wasted the time of our youngsters.
I can't disagree with this. It's been a problem for a very long time.
When I first went to college many moons ago, even back then there were classes for the incoming students who needed to be brought up to college level. These classes were always full.
It always seemed to me that community colleges should fill that gap. Back then, community colleges were considered a joke and just a glorified vocational school. If that's changed, I'm glad. But I feel like if more money and effort were put into community colleges they could shed that stigma and provide a usable college education for everyone.
I was at an education conference a couple of years ago, and according to the speakers there, what's happening behind the scenes is the seeds are being planted at a high level to make community college a guaranteed (free) right in America, the way elementary and high school is. The reasoning is that back when K-12 was established as the norm, that was the normal education one needed to get by in life. Now a two-year degree is the minimum, and the government should step up and add that as well.
Naturally, the problem is always paying for it. But there were some people positing that more educated people get higher-paying jobs and pay more taxes, and somehow it will all work out that way.
I can't disagree with this. It's been a problem for a very long time.
When I first went to college many moons ago, even back then there were classes for the incoming students who needed to be brought up to college level. These classes were always full.
It always seemed to me that community colleges should fill that gap. Back then, community colleges were considered a joke and just a glorified vocational school. If that's changed, I'm glad. But I feel like if more money and effort were put into community colleges they could shed that stigma and provide a usable college education for everyone.
I was at an education conference a couple of years ago, and according to the speakers there, what's happening behind the scenes is the seeds are being planted at a high level to make community college a guaranteed (free) right in America, the way elementary and high school is. The reasoning is that back when K-12 was established as the norm, that was the normal education one needed to get by in life. Now a two-year degree is the minimum, and the government should step up and add that as well.
Naturally, the problem is always paying for it. But there were some people positing that more educated people get higher-paying jobs and pay more taxes, and somehow it will all work out that way.
american high schools aren't proper schools in the sense that they educate their students for life ahead, they're day care. they encourage rote memorization and regurgitation of data instead of critical thinking and processing of the world around us. if you memorize and regurgitate to a passable standard (which is set quite low, at least in the rural public school i attended) they shake your hand and send you out on your way.
i think proper college reform needs to start lower, and make proper adults out of our high school grads instead of requiring four years of paid-for university to accomplish that. unfortunately, i'm no expert and i don't have the foggiest idea where you'd start with that.
i think proper college reform needs to start lower, and make proper adults out of our high school grads instead of requiring four years of paid-for university to accomplish that. unfortunately, i'm no expert and i don't have the foggiest idea where you'd start with that.
american high schools aren't proper schools in the sense that they educate their students for life ahead, they're day care. they encourage rote memorization and regurgitation of data instead of critical thinking and processing of the world around us.
While this is anecdotally common, I can't say it's universal.
Where I went to school we were taught to think. I didn't appreciate it fully at the time, but I do now.
We were taught that knowing things is great, but it's equially important to know why things are the way they are. To this end, we had a lot of classes in history, geography, philosophy (a little) and civics.
Even in elementary school, we went through endless drills called "Fact or opinion" where we were presented with everything from single sentences to headlines to paragraphs, and learned all about weasel words and hidden meanings in the English language. At the time I hated it, and it was one of many things I never thought I'd ever need as an adult.
Today the schools need to teach that more than ever, but I doubt any still do. Even the ones I went to.
While this is anecdotally common, I can't say it's universal.
Where I went to school we were taught to think. I didn't appreciate it fully at the time, but I do now.
We were taught that knowing things is great, but it's equially important to know why things are the way they are. To this end, we had a lot of classes in history, geography, philosophy (a little) and civics.
Even in elementary school, we went through endless drills called "Fact or opinion" where we were presented with everything from single sentences to headlines to paragraphs, and learned all about weasel words and hidden meanings in the English language. At the time I hated it, and it was one of many things I never thought I'd ever need as an adult.
Today the schools need to teach that more than ever, but I doubt any still do. Even the ones I went to.
Besides, it just shouldn’t take a decade or more for someone to discharge a bad debt. Student debt seems uniquely oppressive within the American system, and it really needs to look more like other forms of personal debt.