After Decades of Growth, Colleges Find It’s Survival of the Fittest(wsj.com)
wsj.com
After Decades of Growth, Colleges Find It’s Survival of the Fittest
https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-decades-of-growth-colleges-find-its-survival-of-the-fittest-1519209001
154 comments
You want your child to go to college because:
1) The average run of the mill degree results in twice the earnings and half the unemployment of those with just high school.
2) The average run of the mill degree results in a $900k lift in lifetime earnings (for men) over a high school diploma. The lift for women is not quite that much but that might have something to do with the types of degrees that each get.
These numbers are averages so if your child completes a stem degree from say MIT, the lift in lifetime earnings is likely quite a bit more than that.
Want more? Check out : https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
1) The average run of the mill degree results in twice the earnings and half the unemployment of those with just high school.
2) The average run of the mill degree results in a $900k lift in lifetime earnings (for men) over a high school diploma. The lift for women is not quite that much but that might have something to do with the types of degrees that each get.
These numbers are averages so if your child completes a stem degree from say MIT, the lift in lifetime earnings is likely quite a bit more than that.
Want more? Check out : https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
This shows correlation but not causation. Hypothetically: people with certain background (social class) and traits (IQ) are more likely to go to college, and they would fare as well or better without college. I'd be very interested in stats of lifetime earnings difference that was corrected for selection bias.
Would a 1% sample of the US population that included level of education and earnings do the trick for you?
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/...
It is not going to have variables like "Social status of your parents" or "IQ" but it does have a rather extensive list of demographic variables to control for.
Let me know what you uncover.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/...
It is not going to have variables like "Social status of your parents" or "IQ" but it does have a rather extensive list of demographic variables to control for.
Let me know what you uncover.
IQ, conscientiousness, and parental social status are probably the three biggest determiners of success, presumably none of which are being controlled for.
Sample size doesn't impact the fact that you shouldn't draw causal conclusions from merely correlative data.
Then perhaps you might want to check out some twins studies:
http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/causal_educ_earnings.pd...
and/or
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/19/education/twins-study-show...
I'm going to strongly encourage my kids to go to college.
Frankly if you/anyone is not convinced that higher education leads to increased earnings then by all means forgo college and keep your kids at home.
My kids will have plenty of competition for jobs from those with higher degrees from around the world as it is.
http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/causal_educ_earnings.pd...
and/or
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/19/education/twins-study-show...
I'm going to strongly encourage my kids to go to college.
Frankly if you/anyone is not convinced that higher education leads to increased earnings then by all means forgo college and keep your kids at home.
My kids will have plenty of competition for jobs from those with higher degrees from around the world as it is.
Pointing out that you should not draw causal conclusions from correlative data does not mean that I would not encourage my kids from going to college. It means that you should not conclude that going to any college causes better outcomes. It also doesn't mean that you should conclude that going to college does not cause better outcomes.
I agree. In fact, I pointed out that the data set I referenced was unlikely to include items like "Parental Social Class" and "IQ" specifically for these reason.
I think the point is moreso, connecting correlation to causation is really, really, really, really hard, even for simple stuff. And sample size doesn't change that, it may even make it harder (see Simpson's Paradox re: 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act). I don't know that the_watcher is arguing against college, more noting the underlying assumption and playing devil's advocate.
I would absolutely prefer to send my (hypothetical) children to college for the reasons you've stated here.
But really: are increased earnings due to anything people learn at college or because of its social value? I.e. it's been over-sold and many people will assume you're dumb/couldn't get accepted somewhere if you don't play along.
But really: are increased earnings due to anything people learn at college or because of its social value? I.e. it's been over-sold and many people will assume you're dumb/couldn't get accepted somewhere if you don't play along.
> *My kids will have plenty of competition for jobs
This is the downside of pursuing the same highly commoditized skills being taught to millions of other uni students.
This is the downside of pursuing the same highly commoditized skills being taught to millions of other uni students.
The 1992 study is basically irrelevant since the job market has changed drastically. There are way more self taught computer people out making money without degrees than in 1992 as just one major factor that has changed in over two decades.
The Berkeley study is missing a lot of data and is dated as well from 1999. I searched for the most common high paying non-degree jobs and found nothing about them. Plumbers, electricians, construction contractors, certain kinds of farmers, etc... Recently on HN it was said that construction works in California were starting at $45 an hour in many places. I know plenty of people who got non-stem degrees that do not make that 10+ years out of college and working professionally in their field the whole time.
Furthermore there is the trend of people getting degrees in fields that will not yield jobs or fields that are over saturated. Take lawyers and this article from 2016 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/business/dealbook/an-expe... and this one from 2017 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/28/law-schools-h... . There are plenty more articles going back more than a few years about it.
Then there is the issue of colleges and textbooks constantly increasing costs while not increasing the value of the degree itself. In fact in many instances degrees are worth less now since colleges pass students to keep that fire hose of government backed money coming in. There are numerous documentaries on youtube that go into depth of how colleges are ripping people off in many instances.
The main value of college is the ability to network with people so that finding and getting a job becomes easier. The job hunting process is broken and there are always new startups trying to fix it. In high school they pushed college as the solution to everything harder than a drug dealer slinging product. It is easy to find people who got that degree and their job and earning problems are not solved. Going to college no matter what is a dogma.
It is not clear at all that a college education is going to increase your lifetime earning. You have to pick the right field, get your debt settled quickly, live in or move to the right area and conquer the job hunting process and then you might come out ahead. I think high school students should be better educated on how the market works and there are plenty of non-degree jobs that have serious earning potential. Also the US has neglected trade schools as a job training solution while European countries have not.
The Berkeley study is missing a lot of data and is dated as well from 1999. I searched for the most common high paying non-degree jobs and found nothing about them. Plumbers, electricians, construction contractors, certain kinds of farmers, etc... Recently on HN it was said that construction works in California were starting at $45 an hour in many places. I know plenty of people who got non-stem degrees that do not make that 10+ years out of college and working professionally in their field the whole time.
Furthermore there is the trend of people getting degrees in fields that will not yield jobs or fields that are over saturated. Take lawyers and this article from 2016 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/business/dealbook/an-expe... and this one from 2017 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/28/law-schools-h... . There are plenty more articles going back more than a few years about it.
Then there is the issue of colleges and textbooks constantly increasing costs while not increasing the value of the degree itself. In fact in many instances degrees are worth less now since colleges pass students to keep that fire hose of government backed money coming in. There are numerous documentaries on youtube that go into depth of how colleges are ripping people off in many instances.
The main value of college is the ability to network with people so that finding and getting a job becomes easier. The job hunting process is broken and there are always new startups trying to fix it. In high school they pushed college as the solution to everything harder than a drug dealer slinging product. It is easy to find people who got that degree and their job and earning problems are not solved. Going to college no matter what is a dogma.
It is not clear at all that a college education is going to increase your lifetime earning. You have to pick the right field, get your debt settled quickly, live in or move to the right area and conquer the job hunting process and then you might come out ahead. I think high school students should be better educated on how the market works and there are plenty of non-degree jobs that have serious earning potential. Also the US has neglected trade schools as a job training solution while European countries have not.
I'm sure there is nothing that will convince you at this point, however, I'll offer a final set of links.
In 2013 the "conservative" Brookings Institute seemed to agree that there is an economic advantage to a college degree.
see:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2013/11/12/the-eco...
and
https://www.brookings.edu/research/where-is-the-best-place-t...
If you feel like they have it wrong and that the last five years has resulted in some sort of sea change then so be it.
Good luck with your kid's high school diploma.
In 2013 the "conservative" Brookings Institute seemed to agree that there is an economic advantage to a college degree.
see:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2013/11/12/the-eco...
and
https://www.brookings.edu/research/where-is-the-best-place-t...
If you feel like they have it wrong and that the last five years has resulted in some sort of sea change then so be it.
Good luck with your kid's high school diploma.
> "In 2013 the "conservative" Brookings Institute seemed to agree..."
Setting aside the core causation/correlation problem with your claims about scholastic credentials, it's absurd to call the Brookings institute conservative. It's centre left and, in US election donations, its employees give 97.6% Democrat.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/03/think-tank-e...
Setting aside the core causation/correlation problem with your claims about scholastic credentials, it's absurd to call the Brookings institute conservative. It's centre left and, in US election donations, its employees give 97.6% Democrat.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/03/think-tank-e...
In this case, I don't think your data is that strong. The parent could get them an entry level job in tech, conceivably one comparable with one one would obtain fresh out of college.
Separately from this specific case, remember, to pay off 200k in debt (cost of many good public schools), you need to make about 2M! If you save 20%, then you need an EXTRA 1M over not going to college just to break even. I'm not even factoring in interest that many students are getting these days. And then you have the opportunity cost of not investing the money you did make when you didn't have debt by skipping college. So when you consider these things, a 900k bump in lifetime earnings doesn't look good.
Now if you get a scholarship or if you factor in the intangibles the parent mentions then I think it's a no brainer. But strictly from a lifetime earnings standpoint it's oversold. You have to factor in the foregone earnings, the debt, the interest and the opportunity cost of not being able to save and invest money.
Personally I think it's worth it but best for most people to go to a lower tier university that won't start them off with a mountain of debt.
Separately from this specific case, remember, to pay off 200k in debt (cost of many good public schools), you need to make about 2M! If you save 20%, then you need an EXTRA 1M over not going to college just to break even. I'm not even factoring in interest that many students are getting these days. And then you have the opportunity cost of not investing the money you did make when you didn't have debt by skipping college. So when you consider these things, a 900k bump in lifetime earnings doesn't look good.
Now if you get a scholarship or if you factor in the intangibles the parent mentions then I think it's a no brainer. But strictly from a lifetime earnings standpoint it's oversold. You have to factor in the foregone earnings, the debt, the interest and the opportunity cost of not being able to save and invest money.
Personally I think it's worth it but best for most people to go to a lower tier university that won't start them off with a mountain of debt.
You can certainly accumulate a mountain of debt and one should factor that in.
Not all degrees at all colleges make economic sense or have the same rate of return. That said, there are plenty of net present value calculations that include opportunity costs including in the links I have provided.
I want to correct a few things though.
Leaving the opportunity to take 2 years of community college and finish at a university aside, the most expensive public school in the USA (for in-state students) is the University of Pittsburgh at about $19k a year.
Your $200k debt for public education is either grossly exaggerated, is for out of state tuition and/or includes other factors such as housing and food (items that you would have had to purchase regardless of college status). In fact, the average graduation debt for those at public institutions was $25,550 not $200,000.
The opportunity cost to invest the cost of college is also unrealistic. Unless you are a Thiel Fellow, no one is going to loan/give you $200k to "play the market" as a high school graduate.
You do get an economic advantage of entering the workforce sooner than a college graduate, but that advantage lasts for about 10 years on average and by that time a college graduate typically catches the earnings of a high school graduate (cost of degree and opportunity included).
You might also be interested in this Brookings report comparing investing is stocks, bonds, or university
https://www.brookings.edu/research/where-is-the-best-place-t...
Not all degrees at all colleges make economic sense or have the same rate of return. That said, there are plenty of net present value calculations that include opportunity costs including in the links I have provided.
I want to correct a few things though.
Leaving the opportunity to take 2 years of community college and finish at a university aside, the most expensive public school in the USA (for in-state students) is the University of Pittsburgh at about $19k a year.
Your $200k debt for public education is either grossly exaggerated, is for out of state tuition and/or includes other factors such as housing and food (items that you would have had to purchase regardless of college status). In fact, the average graduation debt for those at public institutions was $25,550 not $200,000.
The opportunity cost to invest the cost of college is also unrealistic. Unless you are a Thiel Fellow, no one is going to loan/give you $200k to "play the market" as a high school graduate.
You do get an economic advantage of entering the workforce sooner than a college graduate, but that advantage lasts for about 10 years on average and by that time a college graduate typically catches the earnings of a high school graduate (cost of degree and opportunity included).
You might also be interested in this Brookings report comparing investing is stocks, bonds, or university
https://www.brookings.edu/research/where-is-the-best-place-t...
That $25,550 average for college graduation debt is out of date. As of 2016, that number is up to $37,172, which itself was up from $35k the previous year. It's probably up to close to $40k as of this year.
It breaks it down further in there. For combined undergraduate and graduate programs, getting an MS brings it up to $50k, Law is $140k, Medicine is $160k.
Source: https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/
And Law doesn't even pay that great if you're not at the tippy top of your class anymore. The average salary for that is at $82k a year. I'm making more than that, and my student loans (that were only $25k at their max) have been really annoying. I can't imagine being able to pay $140k of loans for a Law degree while only making $82k a year.
Source: https://www.biglawinvestor.com/bimodal-salary-distribution-c...
It breaks it down further in there. For combined undergraduate and graduate programs, getting an MS brings it up to $50k, Law is $140k, Medicine is $160k.
Source: https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/
And Law doesn't even pay that great if you're not at the tippy top of your class anymore. The average salary for that is at $82k a year. I'm making more than that, and my student loans (that were only $25k at their max) have been really annoying. I can't imagine being able to pay $140k of loans for a Law degree while only making $82k a year.
Source: https://www.biglawinvestor.com/bimodal-salary-distribution-c...
Ok yes if you attend in-state then 20k (tuition, books) is doable for a good school.
But let's say 60k in debt though, saving 10% isn't even easy for most people especially if you're in an expensive area where most the jobs are. So you'd need 600k extra. Most people only save 2.2% of their income.
> In fact, the average graduation debt for those at public institutions was $25,550 not $200,000.
The average graduation debt probably includes payments made by parents. Yes if your education is being subsidized that will change the analysis. You can't really answer the question of whether college is a good idea unless you know if there are any subsidies for a person. Also your numbers are outdated. It's 38k in 2017.
I looked at your Brookings report but it's from 2011 and factors in an average 4 year degree at only 48k. If they update it to 2018 their 15% return would crumble.
Additionally, Brookings says "On average, 18 and 19 year olds right out of high school earn about $11,600 per year, while 20 and 21 year olds with a high school degree average about $15,400 per year".
Anyone that can get entry level in tech (as the parent suggested) will be multiples of that. If you can only obtain a 11-15k yr annual salary, then yes I agree college is a good investment (if you go in-state). But if you compare it to entry level tech as the parent suggests or an electrician or other trade rather than minimum wage fresh out of high school, no I don't think it's wise for most people unless someone is helping you pay for it (scholarship, parents, company, etc.). A 2 yr or cheap online degree is probably better for most people in my opinion.
Sources:
https://www.financialsamurai.com/the-average-savings-rates-b...
https://www.debt.org/students/
But let's say 60k in debt though, saving 10% isn't even easy for most people especially if you're in an expensive area where most the jobs are. So you'd need 600k extra. Most people only save 2.2% of their income.
> In fact, the average graduation debt for those at public institutions was $25,550 not $200,000.
The average graduation debt probably includes payments made by parents. Yes if your education is being subsidized that will change the analysis. You can't really answer the question of whether college is a good idea unless you know if there are any subsidies for a person. Also your numbers are outdated. It's 38k in 2017.
I looked at your Brookings report but it's from 2011 and factors in an average 4 year degree at only 48k. If they update it to 2018 their 15% return would crumble.
Additionally, Brookings says "On average, 18 and 19 year olds right out of high school earn about $11,600 per year, while 20 and 21 year olds with a high school degree average about $15,400 per year".
Anyone that can get entry level in tech (as the parent suggested) will be multiples of that. If you can only obtain a 11-15k yr annual salary, then yes I agree college is a good investment (if you go in-state). But if you compare it to entry level tech as the parent suggests or an electrician or other trade rather than minimum wage fresh out of high school, no I don't think it's wise for most people unless someone is helping you pay for it (scholarship, parents, company, etc.). A 2 yr or cheap online degree is probably better for most people in my opinion.
Sources:
https://www.financialsamurai.com/the-average-savings-rates-b...
https://www.debt.org/students/
If a student can get into MIT that student will likely be financially well off no matter where they go, even after an upper middle-class family spends nearly $300,000 in tuition, room and board. It's the edge cases that are much harder. Try comparing an expensive private school for four years with a state school (three if they accept AP courses).
Of course there are a lot of other non-financial reasons to attend college, such as growing a circle of friends and being exposed to new ideas in a formal setting. It's unclear how to value that properly however.
Of course there are a lot of other non-financial reasons to attend college, such as growing a circle of friends and being exposed to new ideas in a formal setting. It's unclear how to value that properly however.
When you say 'run of the mill degree' are you referring to Associates, Bachelor, or higher? Additionally, do you know how the data you shared compares to individuals with technical certificates?
The average person who graduates from college is different from.the average person who doesn't in more attributes than "degree held".
Read the rest of this branch of the thread including links to twins studies. If you disagree after reading that and the evidence I present then we will agree to disagree.
The Australian twins study didn't look at income. They looked "two-digit occupation" codes.
Also whether you use monozygotic or dizygotic twins matters.
See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359051/
When just looking at monozygotic twins, ones that don't attend university actually make more money.
Also whether you use monozygotic or dizygotic twins matters.
See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359051/
When just looking at monozygotic twins, ones that don't attend university actually make more money.
> But I guess I still have that romantic notion of him getting a well-rounded education in many subjects that I couldn't help him with, making friends, and meeting interesting professors
Interestingly, in my country (Poland) we never had such romantic concept. You always went to university to go deeply on one specific subject (which you chose when you applied to the uni) - the opposite of being well-rounded. Professors were never meant to be interesting. The one thing I see in common is the hope for making friends.
I wonder if it's similar in other European countries.
Interestingly, in my country (Poland) we never had such romantic concept. You always went to university to go deeply on one specific subject (which you chose when you applied to the uni) - the opposite of being well-rounded. Professors were never meant to be interesting. The one thing I see in common is the hope for making friends.
I wonder if it's similar in other European countries.
I believe that part of the difference is that when the education systems gelled in the US there was in the air the perception that the US is this historically radical experiment in democracy and that it needed a citizenry that well-rounded enough to participate.
I don't believe that there was as strong a sense for those things in other places. But it fit with the way that at least some people thought of the US, at the time.
I don't believe that there was as strong a sense for those things in other places. But it fit with the way that at least some people thought of the US, at the time.
As a recent graduate of an American college, I don't see it as giving me a "well rounded" education. Thanks to advanced courses in High School, I didn't even have to take a writing class. There were maybe 4 or 5 out of over 30 classes through my entire career that weren't directly related to my CS degree
In Germany higher education is also very focused on one subject.
Whether they should or not is a different discussion but I'll put it this way...
Employers (implicitly) use the ability to complete a college degree as a marker of basic competence and knowledge posession necessary to do entry level work. From their side it is simply a more efficient and easier way to assess candidates in bulk than any other approach.
a BS is also a strong social marker of the ability for a student to complete a body of work and manage themselves independent of their parents...basically its an 'adulting' check mark.
Employers (implicitly) use the ability to complete a college degree as a marker of basic competence and knowledge posession necessary to do entry level work. From their side it is simply a more efficient and easier way to assess candidates in bulk than any other approach.
a BS is also a strong social marker of the ability for a student to complete a body of work and manage themselves independent of their parents...basically its an 'adulting' check mark.
Employer here. I’ve never thought like this through the hiring process. I care about what people can build and not where/if they have a degree. The Github section of a CV is 10X more meaningful to me than the education section and I regularly hire people who don’t have degrees.
Ymmv but I’m sure I’m not alone.
Ymmv but I’m sure I’m not alone.
>>Ymmv but I’m sure I’m not alone.
Absolutely agree this is really how it should be done. Education should also be competency based...but here we are with metrics that are validated in societal normativity rather than actual logic :)
The issue is that the method I'm describing is that method used by large scale employers who have the power and sway to influence how colleges act.
Absolutely agree this is really how it should be done. Education should also be competency based...but here we are with metrics that are validated in societal normativity rather than actual logic :)
The issue is that the method I'm describing is that method used by large scale employers who have the power and sway to influence how colleges act.
Having a college degree makes finding a job much easier even if it's totally unrelated to the job. With a lot of employers without degree you are pretty much out of contention for a lot of jobs . It's kind of silly but that's the way it is.
And a degree from a famous college opens even more doors. I still remember at a startup I worked at the VCs would talk to people from MIT or Stanford and ignore everybody else.
And a degree from a famous college opens even more doors. I still remember at a startup I worked at the VCs would talk to people from MIT or Stanford and ignore everybody else.
If you're in the US then it depends on what state you live in. If he can get into one of the good in-state schools then it may be worth it - based on the social experience alone.
Another way to look at is that if you set your son up to be a good critical thinker and emotionally mature then you can trust that he may make the best choice on his own without any encouragement one way or another.
Another way to look at is that if you set your son up to be a good critical thinker and emotionally mature then you can trust that he may make the best choice on his own without any encouragement one way or another.
This does make sense. If he is anything like me, he's going to do whatever the hell he thinks is best. I was the weirdo for going to college.
This is something that I struggle with personally. I'm a junior dev and a part time student. I got the development job after working desktop support at the same company. My technical experience is entirely self taught. I only started going to school because my manager felt that I should receive a formal education as most of the senior devs have.
My issues with it are the cost and the level of education I'm receiving. To give everyone an example, my first database class taught MS Excel and moved to MS Access. This is from a college that is charging me thousands of dollars a year. While at work, I've developed multiple enterprise applications and setup entire SQL Server environments. I feel like I'm receiving way more training from work than from school. This is supported by the extremely positive reviews I've received from senior devs and my manager. And when I say cost of school, it isn't just the amount that I pay out of pocket. It's the time as well. I spend about 16 hours in class each week during business hours. Another 10 to 12 hours at home is spent doing homework or studying. An entire day is spent each week dedicated to school while working 40 hours a week. This makes for a pretty stressful situation. I'm on the edge of breaking down, but I make great money so I feel like I can't complain.
And yes, I know this is very specific to my situation. I could have chosen not to get a full time job and just gone to school instead. However, that would mean giving up starting a career early, which I think is much more valuable. If I can get a job without any education, the experience I have seems to be more valuable than the education. This leads me to believe that I should spend that 20+ hours learning independently instead of going to school. I'd save money that way, time, stress, and I'd likely be at a higher technical level than school has brought me to.
I know this comment doesn't help you out very much. I just wanted to share my situation as someone in the position that your son may be in the future. If I would have known how much I would have learned from work, I would have chosen not to go back to school. The only thing keeping me from stopping is that the senior devs have degrees in higher education and, though most of them are twice my age, I feel like I should keep up with them. Each of them is extremely supportive of both my work and school and I feel like dropping out would be letting them down.
My issues with it are the cost and the level of education I'm receiving. To give everyone an example, my first database class taught MS Excel and moved to MS Access. This is from a college that is charging me thousands of dollars a year. While at work, I've developed multiple enterprise applications and setup entire SQL Server environments. I feel like I'm receiving way more training from work than from school. This is supported by the extremely positive reviews I've received from senior devs and my manager. And when I say cost of school, it isn't just the amount that I pay out of pocket. It's the time as well. I spend about 16 hours in class each week during business hours. Another 10 to 12 hours at home is spent doing homework or studying. An entire day is spent each week dedicated to school while working 40 hours a week. This makes for a pretty stressful situation. I'm on the edge of breaking down, but I make great money so I feel like I can't complain.
And yes, I know this is very specific to my situation. I could have chosen not to get a full time job and just gone to school instead. However, that would mean giving up starting a career early, which I think is much more valuable. If I can get a job without any education, the experience I have seems to be more valuable than the education. This leads me to believe that I should spend that 20+ hours learning independently instead of going to school. I'd save money that way, time, stress, and I'd likely be at a higher technical level than school has brought me to.
I know this comment doesn't help you out very much. I just wanted to share my situation as someone in the position that your son may be in the future. If I would have known how much I would have learned from work, I would have chosen not to go back to school. The only thing keeping me from stopping is that the senior devs have degrees in higher education and, though most of them are twice my age, I feel like I should keep up with them. Each of them is extremely supportive of both my work and school and I feel like dropping out would be letting them down.
Be cool stay in school.
You have a good job and you can get another, you already have valuable skills and work experience.
Unlike many of your classmates, you do not have an urgent need to gain a means to support yourself. When you are next in class, look around and appreciate the rarity of your circumstance.
Enjoy the liberty you have to pursue knowledge solely for edification and personal expansion. You can work towards a degree in any subject that interests you. Enjoy a liberal education.
You have a good job and you can get another, you already have valuable skills and work experience.
Unlike many of your classmates, you do not have an urgent need to gain a means to support yourself. When you are next in class, look around and appreciate the rarity of your circumstance.
Enjoy the liberty you have to pursue knowledge solely for edification and personal expansion. You can work towards a degree in any subject that interests you. Enjoy a liberal education.
> ...my first database class taught MS Excel and moved to MS Access. This is from a college that is charging me thousands of dollars a year.
Which institution and major?
Which institution and major?
I'd rather not give the institution for privacy reasons. I'm majoring in computer programming as part of a Bachelor's in Computer Science.
My older brother has a master in physics, I spent less than 6 years in any kind of formal education. We both work as software developers and I do think my education is as well rounded as his. So on these fronts I don't think it makes much of a difference. That said I did develop anxiety problems that I might not have had if from age 9 to 15 I had spend as much time around a diverse set of peers as he had.
I recently got back in touch with a friend from highschool who's parents were really well off. They actually bought property on the East Coast just so that he could claim residency and get in-state with this really haughty college (I cannot remember which one). He now has several philosophy degrees and works at our old highschool as a librarian. He seems very unhappy with his life as well.
Do you mean you never graduated college, or that you literally only completed schooling up to middle school?
With respect to well-roundedness: would you say your knowledge is also covers as much depth as your brother’s?
With respect to well-roundedness: would you say your knowledge is also covers as much depth as your brother’s?
I went to school from 7 to 9 and then again from 15 to 18. It depends on the subject but on average the depth should be in the same ballpark. He definitely knows more math and physics than I do, maybe chemistry as well, I think I'm better at history. On languages, he's probably better at German than me (note it's our native language), I'm probably better at English than him because I use it more, I don't know how much high-school French he remembers but I assume not as much as I learned in the last few years, I speak Dutch (well somewhat) he doesn't. We're both not very musically inclined.
Also: would he say the same?
Your son could have that at a state school for probably free (depending on the state, and with good grades), and work in a restaurant three or four nights a week to offset some other costs.
Ugh - depends what state school. My wife and I both went to University of Illinois (we are from Illinois). I worked 10 - 20 hours per week, and got some smaller grants, my wife got larger grants..
We still both have more debt than I care to admit... It's literally 20% of our overall monthly expenses.
I found the connections personally invaluable and worth it. My wife is just starting her PhD at U of I, so we both agree it was worth it, but just barely.
We still both have more debt than I care to admit... It's literally 20% of our overall monthly expenses.
I found the connections personally invaluable and worth it. My wife is just starting her PhD at U of I, so we both agree it was worth it, but just barely.
I live in Illinois. I just looked up in-state tuition for UIUC = $17k/year. That is not cheap, but it's a lot less than many lower-ranking private schools. Loyola charges $21k. Roosevelt charges $26k.
UIUC is a great state school, one of the best in the country. I'd say you got a good deal. But yes, definitely not close to free.
UIUC is a great state school, one of the best in the country. I'd say you got a good deal. But yes, definitely not close to free.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Going to one of your state schools is a good choice for a relatively low cost education.
It's naive to think a college degree isn't valuable. Among a collection of candidates with and without college degrees, those with degrees will not only get preferential treatment, but also once they are deep in their careers those who do not have formal degrees will be held back from leadership roles.
This is how the real world works much of the time, the idea that college is becoming less important is wrong. It's becoming more important.
It's naive to think a college degree isn't valuable. Among a collection of candidates with and without college degrees, those with degrees will not only get preferential treatment, but also once they are deep in their careers those who do not have formal degrees will be held back from leadership roles.
This is how the real world works much of the time, the idea that college is becoming less important is wrong. It's becoming more important.
They're probably getting downvoted because the cost of state schools is still too high to work your way through (without loans etc.)
Probably depends on the state. Aren't California's as expensive as private schools now? Some other states still have reasonably priced state schools.
I live in the midwest, and our "premier" state school is $18k/year (including housing). Unless you're going to go to community college for your first two years and then transfer, it's very hard to not incur a substantial amount of debt in completing your degree.
When I went to school in the early/mid 90s, tuition was low enough that I could basically support myself with a job and some minimal support from my dad ($1000/quarter). Those days are long gone, however.
Yes and the full ride scholarships(scholarships in general) are that much more difficult to give. My father got a full ride to a state school back in the 80s but today with his grades it wouldn't happen.
I didn’t get a scholarship (though I should have applied) and it was still affordable. This was at UW in a top 10 CS program.
I would be very interested to know which, if any, schools make this possible.
The SUNY system offers free tuition to NY state residents with annual income under $125K. That may not be too relevant for the children of HNers, but it's a huge proportion of households in NY state.
https://www.ny.gov/programs/tuition-free-degree-program-exce...
https://www.ny.gov/programs/tuition-free-degree-program-exce...
I find it’s doable to attend a college where you won’t pay tuition, but it will most likely be a semi-low-tier, state school and or your estimated family contribution must be zero.
After spending a few years at a community college, I will (I think, I need more for or against opinions) be attending San Francisco State University in the fall. My tuition looks like it will be waived (tuition is about 8k for in-state students, 17k for out-of-state students) since I’m in-state and my estimated family contribution (via FASFA) is zero (family income is about 31k). I will then just have to take out loans for living expenses and hopefully work part-time to lessen them.
After spending a few years at a community college, I will (I think, I need more for or against opinions) be attending San Francisco State University in the fall. My tuition looks like it will be waived (tuition is about 8k for in-state students, 17k for out-of-state students) since I’m in-state and my estimated family contribution (via FASFA) is zero (family income is about 31k). I will then just have to take out loans for living expenses and hopefully work part-time to lessen them.
I got great value from CC. But you'll want to make sure it not only has proper (regional) accreditation, but also a "transfer agreement" to the local university of your choice.
This isn't 100% necessary, but it sure helps as a guideline to know what courses have value for your future program. The naming schemes at different schools can be confusing ("Am I supposed to take Technical Calculus 1 or Calculus 1 for Scientists and Engineers?") - so having the direct transfer numbers is helpful. The advisors at CC aren't always necessarily educated and may make assumptions like EE and EE Tech being the same program..
Finally, if you're going on to a BS, the AS is next to useless in my experience (besides resume fodder). It's the actual classes that transfer that are the value, and whether you finish at CC or not is not a big deal.. (though go ahead and do it if it's just like a few classes different).
CC is cheap and there's sometimes interesting courses like archaeology or whatever so have fun with that.
Cons:
It can be a little more difficult to find a top quality internship while you're a CC student. You should still try to find one though, and join clubs and whatnot.. CC won't have FSAE but they do tend to have other stuff.
This isn't 100% necessary, but it sure helps as a guideline to know what courses have value for your future program. The naming schemes at different schools can be confusing ("Am I supposed to take Technical Calculus 1 or Calculus 1 for Scientists and Engineers?") - so having the direct transfer numbers is helpful. The advisors at CC aren't always necessarily educated and may make assumptions like EE and EE Tech being the same program..
Finally, if you're going on to a BS, the AS is next to useless in my experience (besides resume fodder). It's the actual classes that transfer that are the value, and whether you finish at CC or not is not a big deal.. (though go ahead and do it if it's just like a few classes different).
CC is cheap and there's sometimes interesting courses like archaeology or whatever so have fun with that.
Cons:
It can be a little more difficult to find a top quality internship while you're a CC student. You should still try to find one though, and join clubs and whatnot.. CC won't have FSAE but they do tend to have other stuff.
It's possible to graduate from an average state school with maybe $30,000 in debt, given modest parental support and working a part time job.
That sort of debt is easy to deal with if you get work in a reasonably well paying field
That sort of debt is easy to deal with if you get work in a reasonably well paying field
I'm curious to know what percentage of HN readers had their parents help pay for university/housing.
That could explain why so many here think university is obviously "what you do".
That could explain why so many here think university is obviously "what you do".
It doesn't matter though. Look at the statistics for life long earning potential for degree vs non degree holders. Even if you have to graduate with $100k of debt, you should definitely go to college.
It's easy to be intimidated by the debt load, but that fear is shortsighted. In the long term college makes sense.
Here's some data on the lifetime earning potential between college grads and non grads, from the US Social Security Administration:
"Men with bachelor's degrees earn approximately $900,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with bachelor's degrees earn $630,000 more. Men with graduate degrees earn $1.5 million more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with graduate degrees earn $1.1 million more"
>https://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy/research/education-earn...
It's easy to be intimidated by the debt load, but that fear is shortsighted. In the long term college makes sense.
Here's some data on the lifetime earning potential between college grads and non grads, from the US Social Security Administration:
"Men with bachelor's degrees earn approximately $900,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with bachelor's degrees earn $630,000 more. Men with graduate degrees earn $1.5 million more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with graduate degrees earn $1.1 million more"
>https://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy/research/education-earn...
Be careful.
Just because degree holders have higher lifetime earnings, that doesn't necessarily mean graduating from college will increase lifetime earnings. The alternative hypothesis is that the attributes that drive someone to both go to college and succeed in passing classes are also the same attributes that cause success at work.
I'm not saying a college degree doesn't open doors for you, it absolutely does, I'm saying you can't look at the numbers like that and make that conclusion.
(The dropout rate is also ~45% so you take a significant risk of taking on the cost burden without a payout)
Just because degree holders have higher lifetime earnings, that doesn't necessarily mean graduating from college will increase lifetime earnings. The alternative hypothesis is that the attributes that drive someone to both go to college and succeed in passing classes are also the same attributes that cause success at work.
I'm not saying a college degree doesn't open doors for you, it absolutely does, I'm saying you can't look at the numbers like that and make that conclusion.
(The dropout rate is also ~45% so you take a significant risk of taking on the cost burden without a payout)
I agree with you on the point that a certain drive and determination helps in both going to college and more general life success irrespective of a degree. There are some people who would succeed without going to college, certainly.
But going to college makes the path much easier, even for talented and motivated people. So I take that into account and look at the numbers, and stand by my assertion that except for maybe the most unique cases college makes sense for the vast majority.
But going to college makes the path much easier, even for talented and motivated people. So I take that into account and look at the numbers, and stand by my assertion that except for maybe the most unique cases college makes sense for the vast majority.
So let's follow your logic and assume it's clearly in everyone's best interest to go to college, and 100% of high school graduates go on to university.
Now the market is flooded with bullshit degrees (assuming no one drops out, putting themselves in an even worse financial situation) and the value of a college degree just went down. Now what?
Now the market is flooded with bullshit degrees (assuming no one drops out, putting themselves in an even worse financial situation) and the value of a college degree just went down. Now what?
Well in that case people will be judged based on the prestige and quality of the college they went to, and the rigor of their chosen program of study.
Turns out that already happens without a degree. Welders and electricians are held in pretty high regard compared to someone who spent 4 years in classes that have no real world application.
The "college is inherently good" model is flawed.
The "college is inherently good" model is flawed.
Mmm... I think your point is valid, but perhaps a little over-emphasized.
It certainly is worth noting what you are mentioning, that there is more to life than college. The overall summary still is true, though, that college educated students do better career earnings wise. There's just a lot of variance and spread you have to take in account.
This website is good, in that it gives some details of the spread inherent in lifetime earnings per college majors. (http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/major_decisions_what_g...)
There is a lot of spread depending on your major. In addition to the lifetime earnings, the site does note that there is huge variance within each major itself. As quoted, "the highest-earning 10 percent of high school graduates out-earn the bottom tenth of graduates in every single major".
Unfortunately this report does not seem to go in much detail on two year degrees. Because community / 2-year college in the US is so much cheaper than 4 year colleges typically, I am willing to bet that -- especially if you have to go into debt -- there are some good paths there where the pure rate of return is higher than some college paths these days. (The high school diploma path only OTOH doesn't seem that great unless your atypically REALLY self-motivated.)
I do think that chasing career paths solely based on current income is a bad strategy. If you are really into music and meh on molecules, no matter what the average numbers say, it's probably better to be a top 10% musician degree holder than a bottom 10% chemical engineer degree holder.
It certainly is worth noting what you are mentioning, that there is more to life than college. The overall summary still is true, though, that college educated students do better career earnings wise. There's just a lot of variance and spread you have to take in account.
This website is good, in that it gives some details of the spread inherent in lifetime earnings per college majors. (http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/major_decisions_what_g...)
There is a lot of spread depending on your major. In addition to the lifetime earnings, the site does note that there is huge variance within each major itself. As quoted, "the highest-earning 10 percent of high school graduates out-earn the bottom tenth of graduates in every single major".
Unfortunately this report does not seem to go in much detail on two year degrees. Because community / 2-year college in the US is so much cheaper than 4 year colleges typically, I am willing to bet that -- especially if you have to go into debt -- there are some good paths there where the pure rate of return is higher than some college paths these days. (The high school diploma path only OTOH doesn't seem that great unless your atypically REALLY self-motivated.)
I do think that chasing career paths solely based on current income is a bad strategy. If you are really into music and meh on molecules, no matter what the average numbers say, it's probably better to be a top 10% musician degree holder than a bottom 10% chemical engineer degree holder.
This is a strawman. This isn't the world that we live in and it won't be the one we live in for the foreseeable future.
My point is that there is prosperity outside of a college education, and that we should think about what assumptions are made by employers about people who do get a college education.
Now you have a more educated populace and everyone benefits.
That may work if you graduate, but a lot of people end up dropping out, they still get a large portion of the debt, but without the degree. It's really worth at least considering if you're likely to finish before you start.
I have a high school diploma. I dropped out of University after a year to get a startup job in '97. As a self-taught IT worker my lifetime earning have far exceeded all of my University-degreed peers (some Ivy!), even with two market crashes and job losses under my belt. They are earning less or equal to me, and still have staggering 5 and 6 figure debt loads.
There are always exceptions, none of these are hard-and-fast rules.
> As a self-taught IT worker my lifetime earning have far exceeded all of my University-degreed peers (some Ivy!)
What were their degrees in? Did any of them go to private liberal arts colleges? Those are more important facts when assessing their careers than the mere fact they went to college, especially when comparing with someone like yourself, who seems to have had good timing jumping into a new-ish, growing industry.
> As a self-taught IT worker my lifetime earning have far exceeded all of my University-degreed peers (some Ivy!)
What were their degrees in? Did any of them go to private liberal arts colleges? Those are more important facts when assessing their careers than the mere fact they went to college, especially when comparing with someone like yourself, who seems to have had good timing jumping into a new-ish, growing industry.
Good for you, but this is no where near normal.
My parents paid for everything for both my sister and I. I lived at home and commuted, she moved to the other side of the country and dormed/rented. I spent a 5th year in college because I didn't know what I wanted to do for a career.
Having a sibling (me) enrolled in higher education reduced what my parents paid for my sister's tuition by a huge amount, so I was kind of pressured into staying an extra year, but I would have done it anyway because I got to finish a second degree and I wasn't paying.
Funnily enough my sister and I majored in the same non-STEM major, but she went into it with the goal of working in finance from the start, and the main qualifier for that was the school she went to and not the degree itself, while I was kind of planning to go to law school afterwards but wasn't set on it.
Total costs for me for tuition were around $30k, since I did 2 years at community college (not by choice, my high school grades were abysmal). My parents also paid for nearly everything for both of us (food, bills, gas for me, dorm/rent for her, and anything we charged to credit cards within reason if we asked first). She went to an ivy league and I'd ballpark what my parents spent on her tuition alone at $200k. Living expenses were probably another $100k.
She started her career right out of college, I leeched off my parents for another three years and then decided I wanted to go into software development because two of my friends were able to work remotely full-time and that seemed amazing to me. That's honestly what sold me, though I haven't felt the need to find a remote position because I live right next to work and actually enjoy coming into the office.
I don't think college was worth it for me TBH, and when I say that, I mean me as an individual/person, not people in general. I barely made any friends due to commuting + being shy, didn't really enjoy it, I don't felt like I learnt anything I could not have learned on my own, made 0 friends that I still talk to or see on a regular basis today, and I don't think my degrees were a significant factor in starting or continuing my career.
When I have kids and start preparing them for college, I will definitely encourage them to live on-campus. I'll also do everything possible for them to be able to graduate without debt.
Having a sibling (me) enrolled in higher education reduced what my parents paid for my sister's tuition by a huge amount, so I was kind of pressured into staying an extra year, but I would have done it anyway because I got to finish a second degree and I wasn't paying.
Funnily enough my sister and I majored in the same non-STEM major, but she went into it with the goal of working in finance from the start, and the main qualifier for that was the school she went to and not the degree itself, while I was kind of planning to go to law school afterwards but wasn't set on it.
Total costs for me for tuition were around $30k, since I did 2 years at community college (not by choice, my high school grades were abysmal). My parents also paid for nearly everything for both of us (food, bills, gas for me, dorm/rent for her, and anything we charged to credit cards within reason if we asked first). She went to an ivy league and I'd ballpark what my parents spent on her tuition alone at $200k. Living expenses were probably another $100k.
She started her career right out of college, I leeched off my parents for another three years and then decided I wanted to go into software development because two of my friends were able to work remotely full-time and that seemed amazing to me. That's honestly what sold me, though I haven't felt the need to find a remote position because I live right next to work and actually enjoy coming into the office.
I don't think college was worth it for me TBH, and when I say that, I mean me as an individual/person, not people in general. I barely made any friends due to commuting + being shy, didn't really enjoy it, I don't felt like I learnt anything I could not have learned on my own, made 0 friends that I still talk to or see on a regular basis today, and I don't think my degrees were a significant factor in starting or continuing my career.
When I have kids and start preparing them for college, I will definitely encourage them to live on-campus. I'll also do everything possible for them to be able to graduate without debt.
All public universities in Germany (which is 95%+ of all universities), and some other G8 countries.
https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/student-finance...
https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/student-finance...
The state of Washington has a free tuition program as well.
Community college could provide a lot of what you seek.
At least half of university is the social experience. There's more to life that credentializing in the work force. And university is over in a quick blip anyways, then it gets harder to get laid.
Think of it as a way to make his mid-life crisis less probable.
Think of it as a way to make his mid-life crisis less probable.
Your kid will have many full online degrees on the level of conventional M.S., maybe even PhD, once he's adult. These days you have Georgia Tech's OMSCS/OMSA and Duke's MS in Health Analytics already; I am sure more will come.
I doubt there will be online degrees equivalent to a PhD (or calling itself a PhD). The coursework of a PhD is typically very similar to a master's in the same subject (maybe with a few additional requirements) but is usually just a primer for the real work doing our research. Conducting research is an inherently social exercise and the mentorship that is given during a PhD won't be easily replicable with an online program.
I agree with the general point you're making though.
I agree with the general point you're making though.
This is one of the things I think about, the alternative options that may expand in the near future. But it kind of goes against half of what I want for him. You're not really breaking out of your parent's orbit and flying on your own when you sit on a computer at your parent's house. It seems like a good option for people who are past that age, living on their own. But I want him to go out and meet new people, make some mistakes and learn from them.
One program that I got excited about a few years ago (unfortunately I was already an undergrad at the time) was Minerva [0]. It's relatively inexpensive, seems as if the coursework has a lot of rigor, and you get to do a bunch of traveling while in school.
https://www.minerva.kgi.edu/
https://www.minerva.kgi.edu/
You already have external PhD programs at many universities, just their success rate is usually abysmal, which I believe is often due to non-MOOC basic classes they require. As you mentioned, those are often overlapping with advanced grad courses, so at least that barrier could be gone by time OP's kid is adult.
It's all about your network. Going to a good school opens many doors. So yes tech but also get the degree. And if in tech do internships. Ideally and hopefully, your son can get scholarships to offset tuition.
> I'm not really sure what good it did for me.
You don't feel like all the liberal arts classes made you a more well rounded person and gave you a broader perspective on life, etc., etc.?
You don't feel like all the liberal arts classes made you a more well rounded person and gave you a broader perspective on life, etc., etc.?
Managerial class wants people who have college degrees. So send your kid to a school that costs you less.
Tell him to go.
College and dorm living is where, in our family, we meet and fall in love with our spouse. The marriages that worked passed this on for 4 generations. This is an unspoken teaching to all that grow up in all of our roofs.
For me, my kids, my siblings and our parents and (probably both gp) the best thing that happened in college was meeting our spouses.
College and dorm living is where, in our family, we meet and fall in love with our spouse. The marriages that worked passed this on for 4 generations. This is an unspoken teaching to all that grow up in all of our roofs.
For me, my kids, my siblings and our parents and (probably both gp) the best thing that happened in college was meeting our spouses.
“”You’re going to see, over the next five years, a real increase in the number of schools in serious trouble,” Dr. Vedder said. “A degree from a top school is a still a pretty good signaling device [to employers]. It means you’re smart and hardworking. But a degree from one of these lower schools doesn’t mean much of anything.”“
Any discussion about third level education needs to take into account price and hence ROI.
I’m really surprised that this article doesn’t talk about the high rate at which US college tuition costs increased from 2008 to present. Especially for law schools. The closest it gets is the following paragraph:
“But in the past few years, the winds have shifted. The birthrate fell, the pay advantage for college graduates over high-school graduates declined, states cut $9 billion in funding to public colleges and student debt soared.”
Tuition in the US has gone up a lot while wages for many jobs have stayed relatively flat:
“In during the 1980-81 school year, the average college tuition at private universities was $9,882. By 2014-15, that number exploded to $26,740.
For public universities, the tuition figures went from $2,196 to $8,534”
https://businessinsider.com/this-chart-shows-college-tuition...
This is the main reason why colleges are struggling in the US.
Any discussion about third level education needs to take into account price and hence ROI.
I’m really surprised that this article doesn’t talk about the high rate at which US college tuition costs increased from 2008 to present. Especially for law schools. The closest it gets is the following paragraph:
“But in the past few years, the winds have shifted. The birthrate fell, the pay advantage for college graduates over high-school graduates declined, states cut $9 billion in funding to public colleges and student debt soared.”
Tuition in the US has gone up a lot while wages for many jobs have stayed relatively flat:
“In during the 1980-81 school year, the average college tuition at private universities was $9,882. By 2014-15, that number exploded to $26,740.
For public universities, the tuition figures went from $2,196 to $8,534”
https://businessinsider.com/this-chart-shows-college-tuition...
This is the main reason why colleges are struggling in the US.
This has been predicted in higher ed for the past ~2 decades. It's relatively easy to look at the number of students in the pipeline, and you can see there were two big peaks in the last half century: baby boomers in the 60s-70s, and their children in the 90s-2000s. They managed to keep the boom going a little longer in the late 2000s with increased international enrollment, but it's over now (peak enrollment was 2010).
the other big trend has been that colleges in the US are disproportionately concentrated in a broad arc from New England through the Midwest for historical reasons, but young people in the US are increasingly concentrated in the South and West. I suspect we'll see a die off of lots of the small colleges that really only appeal locally throughout those areas. It's going to be pretty painful, look at what happened with Sweet Briar, which just managed to stay open (and admittedly suffered from another big trend: the death of women's colleges).
The best source for all of this (as with most news about how universities are run in the USA) is the Chronicle of Higher Education.
the other big trend has been that colleges in the US are disproportionately concentrated in a broad arc from New England through the Midwest for historical reasons, but young people in the US are increasingly concentrated in the South and West. I suspect we'll see a die off of lots of the small colleges that really only appeal locally throughout those areas. It's going to be pretty painful, look at what happened with Sweet Briar, which just managed to stay open (and admittedly suffered from another big trend: the death of women's colleges).
The best source for all of this (as with most news about how universities are run in the USA) is the Chronicle of Higher Education.
More on point with the article, I hate when information is delivered like this without any context. Less than 20% of schools are failing? Wow thats...I don't know what that is. Whats the median for failing colleges per...decade? How long does a college usually take to fail?
Woah, I was all ready to come back here and discuss the article when I figured, what the hell lets give the comments section on the WSJ a chance.
Maybe I'm out of touch in my little tech/business cross section of the world, but where did that overwhelming hate for higher education come from? Nearly all of those comments are...not making very logical arguments worth discussing either.
Maybe I'm out of touch in my little tech/business cross section of the world, but where did that overwhelming hate for higher education come from? Nearly all of those comments are...not making very logical arguments worth discussing either.
1. College costs have been outstripping inflation for decades. This is well-known and obvious: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=rising+college+costs+decades&ia=we...
2. It's not clear that most colleges are actually teaching much most of the time: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo103...
3. Related to #2, it seems that most colleges have evolved non-educational tracks for those who want them: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-eliz...
4. See Bryan Caplan's book The Case Against Education, which argues that most of education system is about signaling, not human capital education. If that's true, we ought to work harder to find other ways to signal.
5. It's not clear where the money for college is going. It's not going to instructors or instruction. So where is it disappearing into? Many blame administrators, sports, Title IX, bureaucracy, Baumol's Cost Disease, etc., but I'm not sure what the real answer is.
6. The logical arguments are mostly in books, not online.
2. It's not clear that most colleges are actually teaching much most of the time: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo103...
3. Related to #2, it seems that most colleges have evolved non-educational tracks for those who want them: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-eliz...
4. See Bryan Caplan's book The Case Against Education, which argues that most of education system is about signaling, not human capital education. If that's true, we ought to work harder to find other ways to signal.
5. It's not clear where the money for college is going. It's not going to instructors or instruction. So where is it disappearing into? Many blame administrators, sports, Title IX, bureaucracy, Baumol's Cost Disease, etc., but I'm not sure what the real answer is.
6. The logical arguments are mostly in books, not online.
I don't subscribe to the WSJ or its comments, but I suspect there's also an additional reason:
7. Colleges and universities are ground zero (and a symbol) of a (newish) culture that loudly, strongly, and explicitly rejects and condemns much of the rest of America; and especially the type of American that stereotypically would read the WSJ. Conservatives, libertarians, and increasingly classical liberals are not going to have very warm feelings towards things that they perceive are openly hostile to their values.
7. Colleges and universities are ground zero (and a symbol) of a (newish) culture that loudly, strongly, and explicitly rejects and condemns much of the rest of America; and especially the type of American that stereotypically would read the WSJ. Conservatives, libertarians, and increasingly classical liberals are not going to have very warm feelings towards things that they perceive are openly hostile to their values.
> 7. Colleges and universities are ground zero (and a symbol) of a (newish) culture that loudly, strongly, and explicitly rejects and condemns much of the rest of America; and especially the type of American that stereotypically would read the WSJ.
Do you read the WSJ? I can’t really take your point seriously if you’re using it as an example of what the “left intelligentsia” condemns. Yes, it’s not the NYT, but the WSJ is mostly consumed by people in the group you’re talking about. In fact, they are the WSJ’s primary readership.
Do you read the WSJ? I can’t really take your point seriously if you’re using it as an example of what the “left intelligentsia” condemns. Yes, it’s not the NYT, but the WSJ is mostly consumed by people in the group you’re talking about. In fact, they are the WSJ’s primary readership.
> Colleges and universities are ground zero (and a symbol) of a (newish) culture that loudly, strongly, and explicitly rejects and condemns much of the rest of America
I believe that this is a conservative charge. For what it is worth, I work at a college and I don't find that to be so. Of course, it may be the college I work at and I am sure that a person can find college faculty with almost cartoonish views on society.
But, while most of my colleagues are mildly liberal (although there certainly are conservatives), they seem to me to be quite mainstream. I can't recall ever, since I came here in 1990, hearing even one instance of rejecting and condeming much of the rest of America.
I believe that this is a conservative charge. For what it is worth, I work at a college and I don't find that to be so. Of course, it may be the college I work at and I am sure that a person can find college faculty with almost cartoonish views on society.
But, while most of my colleagues are mildly liberal (although there certainly are conservatives), they seem to me to be quite mainstream. I can't recall ever, since I came here in 1990, hearing even one instance of rejecting and condeming much of the rest of America.
> 1. College costs have been outstripping inflation for decades.
At least for public universities, the rise in costs can be largely attributed to the collapse of state support:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-m...
At least for public universities, the rise in costs can be largely attributed to the collapse of state support:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-m...
Business 101: do more with less.
College admin 101: do about the same with more but with new bright lipstick to put on a pig.
College admin 101: do about the same with more but with new bright lipstick to put on a pig.
I have little love for an institution that profits off dreams and naivete and destroys lives with un-dischargeable debt. But hey, at least the football coach is rich and the gym is fancy! Also in retrospect I learned almost nothing useful in college. Loads on my own time, though.
Also, how the hell is college so damn expensive when the people teaching classes are paid 12 bucks an hour because they're "adjuncts"?? where tf is the money going?? (see above)
Exception: my local junior college was great, and reasonably priced. If you want to do uni, go to jc and then to europe.
Oh. Also there's a whole university cargo cult. It made some baby boomers wealthy so obviously the solution is for EVERYONE to go to college.
Also, how the hell is college so damn expensive when the people teaching classes are paid 12 bucks an hour because they're "adjuncts"?? where tf is the money going?? (see above)
Exception: my local junior college was great, and reasonably priced. If you want to do uni, go to jc and then to europe.
Oh. Also there's a whole university cargo cult. It made some baby boomers wealthy so obviously the solution is for EVERYONE to go to college.
> Also, how the hell is college so damn expensive when the people teaching classes are paid 12 bucks an hour because they're "adjuncts"?? where tf is the money going?? (see above)
A non-trivial portion goes to legal expenses and risk management. It started with the concept of in loco parentis (in the place of the parent). University students stopped being adults and became children.
Obama's interpretation of Title IX was also catastrophic for expenses. All of a sudden you had to set up your own internal pseudo-court system and have an entire mechanism for handling even the most dubious of accusations. These things are not free.
This has snowballed into other pseudo-legal aspects and the social justice movement is just monumentally expensive to deal with. It's not a question of if a #metoo incident happens on your campus, it's a matter when. What steps did you take to prevent it? What staff do you have in place to react?
And the worst is that once you've hired these staff they're there forever. There will never will a point of mission accomplished, perfect equity, or an environment sufficiently free of even the smallest of nano-harassments for a university to rid itself of this burden.
Don't get me wrong, there's a country club and sports team aspect to a lot of university expenses, but the primary purpose of most universities is not education, research, or anything along those lines - it's to avoid getting sued into oblivion.
A non-trivial portion goes to legal expenses and risk management. It started with the concept of in loco parentis (in the place of the parent). University students stopped being adults and became children.
Obama's interpretation of Title IX was also catastrophic for expenses. All of a sudden you had to set up your own internal pseudo-court system and have an entire mechanism for handling even the most dubious of accusations. These things are not free.
This has snowballed into other pseudo-legal aspects and the social justice movement is just monumentally expensive to deal with. It's not a question of if a #metoo incident happens on your campus, it's a matter when. What steps did you take to prevent it? What staff do you have in place to react?
And the worst is that once you've hired these staff they're there forever. There will never will a point of mission accomplished, perfect equity, or an environment sufficiently free of even the smallest of nano-harassments for a university to rid itself of this burden.
Don't get me wrong, there's a country club and sports team aspect to a lot of university expenses, but the primary purpose of most universities is not education, research, or anything along those lines - it's to avoid getting sued into oblivion.
I’m sorry, but without some sort of citation from a reputable source, I just don’t buy this as a contributing factor at all and call BS.
I spent years as a student and working at a large research University and let’s be very, very generous and say that there were 30 people detailed to this “#metoo incident” mitigation and action squad. Of the thousands and thousands of other nonfaculty staff payroll; of the many millions the library system pays for journal access alone, let alone special collections and acquisition; of the cost of running the steam for heating the buildings, the computing infrastructure; etc., etc. how non-trivial do you expect this Title IV portion to be?
I spent years as a student and working at a large research University and let’s be very, very generous and say that there were 30 people detailed to this “#metoo incident” mitigation and action squad. Of the thousands and thousands of other nonfaculty staff payroll; of the many millions the library system pays for journal access alone, let alone special collections and acquisition; of the cost of running the steam for heating the buildings, the computing infrastructure; etc., etc. how non-trivial do you expect this Title IV portion to be?
Yep. I know several college administrators who have complained that their departments have exploded in size — in one case from five “student life” admins to over 100 — over the past 10 years.
This is caused by external forces like Title IX compliance, but also by the expectation that, since students are now essentially the consumers of a luxury good, they expect impeccable and instantaneous “customer service”.
This is caused by external forces like Title IX compliance, but also by the expectation that, since students are now essentially the consumers of a luxury good, they expect impeccable and instantaneous “customer service”.
I'm not sure how much I buy most of what you're saying beyond in loco parentis causing a ballooning in staff and legal costs. Title IX related activism is a relatively new phenomenon, and I don't think we can attribute older trends in college cost growth to something so nascent (at least in its current form).
Also, how the hell is college so damn expensive when
the people teaching classes are paid 12 bucks an hour
Imagine I'm the boss of a university, and I push through across-the-board budget cuts of 10%, and cut tuition by 10%. I drop the out-of-state annual price from $25,000 to $22,500.
Am I going to be widely praised for my radical move? Probably not, the price remains extremely high. Are sales going to skyrocket, offsetting the price drop? Probably not, most good universities fill 100% of their places.
Are loads of the colleagues I see on a daily basis going to be mad at me? Quite possibly! Did I take this job because I love slashing budgets for libraries and arts education? Probably not. Is there a risk, due to different departments' abilities to raise funds externally, that some departments will be disproportionately impacted? Absolutely.
If I'm a university boss and I want an easy life, much easier to turn a blind eye to increasing costs.
Hah, that reminds me of the scene in The Wire when a mayoral candidate asks a popular former mayor why he didn't run again. The guy replies that all he did was eat bowls of shit that various constituents brought him every day. One day, it was the police union, then it was the teachers, then it was the ministers, and on and on. By the time his term was up, he realized he didn't mind just being a downtown corporate lawyer with a nice salary.
Some jobs are truly thankless jobs.
Some jobs are truly thankless jobs.
This is partially why the people that do run end up being the ones that can profit from being corrupt.
Worse, in the UK universities with lower prices often have trouble filling their places, as applicants assume there must be something wrong with them.
The typical comparison of college to today to that from 20 or 30 years ago is just poorly considered. "Where does the money go?" Consider the things that didn't exist at many colleges 30 years ago:
- IT
- Any type of student welfare services.
- Title IX and any other regulatory offices.
- Diversity offices and other efforts.
- Disability services.
- Dedicated police departments.
- Advising, Counseling, and Academic support (because more and lower-qualified students than ever are going to college).
- In the case of state schools, typically significant budget cuts from the state.
I'm not saying these rationally explain the increase in cost, but it's a significant expansion in responsibility and functionality that brought with it administration and bureaucracy.
- IT
- Any type of student welfare services.
- Title IX and any other regulatory offices.
- Diversity offices and other efforts.
- Disability services.
- Dedicated police departments.
- Advising, Counseling, and Academic support (because more and lower-qualified students than ever are going to college).
- In the case of state schools, typically significant budget cuts from the state.
I'm not saying these rationally explain the increase in cost, but it's a significant expansion in responsibility and functionality that brought with it administration and bureaucracy.
In theory, at least, IT should represent cost savings.
I can't see how having to support the network infra for 25k students' Netflix addiction is possibly a cost savings.
IT is more than internet connections. It's also, for instance, reducing your need for employees by having class registration done entirely online.
I definitely see the potential for cost savings in some areas, but there are whole sectors of technology activity in a contemporary university that aren't offsetting some pre-digital expense; they're just a reflection of the increased technical cost of instruction and lifestyle.
Yeah, but the cost of manipulating and transporting information approaches zero over time.
> Also, how the hell is college so damn expensive
It's a positional good, and the buyers are bidding for it using borrowed money, and bidding from a position that is underinformed and cannot be anything but underinformed.
It's the epitome of a bubble.
It's a positional good, and the buyers are bidding for it using borrowed money, and bidding from a position that is underinformed and cannot be anything but underinformed.
It's the epitome of a bubble.
Most of the teachers are also more occupied with doing research than actual teaching.
At the Tier 2 regional colleges that people here tout as the alternative to Ivy League universities with astronomical tuition? That's preposterous, you don't even get teaching assistants!
Most people here went do university, and they still have no notion how the sausage is made. Why is that?
Most people here went do university, and they still have no notion how the sausage is made. Why is that?
> Most of the teachers are also more occupied with doing research than actual teaching.
This varies wildly across colleges/universities, faculty position, and department. There's enough variation that it's much more nuanced than your statement indicates.
This varies wildly across colleges/universities, faculty position, and department. There's enough variation that it's much more nuanced than your statement indicates.
to the top
Would you mind please posting substantively?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I feel like you have a bit of an extreme take by saying 'profiting off dreams and naivete'. Uni is excellent for people for so many reasons. The price has gotten out of hand thats for sure.
College and education are wonderful things. We just have to make sure it's within reach for everyone
My stem grad friends are doing well.
My music and archaeology friends are not. Unfortunately, the cult runs so deep that some were convinced the solution to being unemployed was a master's. True, they signed the papers, but a whole industry exists to deceive them.
So, you have 50+k in debt, are in your mid-late 20's, and you:
will not qualify for a mortgage (so you keep paying rent instead of at least buying something with SOME value for that money)
Cannot start any sort of enterprise because you can't save, because your disposable income goes to loans/rent (see above)
Cannot reasonably save for retirement
And god help you if you want a kid or want to save for their college education. We made sure ours is an EU citizen so she doesn't have to deal with quite so much of this bullshit (hopefully).
My music and archaeology friends are not. Unfortunately, the cult runs so deep that some were convinced the solution to being unemployed was a master's. True, they signed the papers, but a whole industry exists to deceive them.
So, you have 50+k in debt, are in your mid-late 20's, and you:
will not qualify for a mortgage (so you keep paying rent instead of at least buying something with SOME value for that money)
Cannot start any sort of enterprise because you can't save, because your disposable income goes to loans/rent (see above)
Cannot reasonably save for retirement
And god help you if you want a kid or want to save for their college education. We made sure ours is an EU citizen so she doesn't have to deal with quite so much of this bullshit (hopefully).
The problem you're having is not with education itself. But with education AFFORDABILITY.
Music and Archaeology would be incredible majors if the students didn't have to go into debt.
Education, university, and all of the social connections, experiences and knowledge gained are wonderful for a kid in their early 20s and really makes for a well rounded person and betters society by making people good educated citizens.
However the affordability is an issue. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Music and Archaeology would be incredible majors if the students didn't have to go into debt.
Education, university, and all of the social connections, experiences and knowledge gained are wonderful for a kid in their early 20s and really makes for a well rounded person and betters society by making people good educated citizens.
However the affordability is an issue. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
A crushing amount of student loan debt stinks, and so does a low quality degree that teaches little if actual substance. These are not wonderful things.
Not every degree is low quality. I and most of my school friends benefited immeasurably from college education.
Universities make a boatload more money peddling basket weaving degrees in social sciences, psychology, athlete nutrition, literature of forgotten tribes of Egypt, history of hair weaving vs. engineering because the prices charged are nearly the same while the outlay needed to "train" a person for b.s. degree is smaller.
This means that universities are incentivized to peddle b.s. degrees.
This means that universities are incentivized to peddle b.s. degrees.
I don't know...I still see plenty of STEM grads, even CS grads and even from good schools, doing developer bootcamps.
There is self selection going on in the comments of just about every article. In general people with strong feelings are more likely to comment, and on the internet strong negative feelings seem to be more common (and especially in an article about failing institutions).
In this case, people that hated going to college (or hated the idea of going) are more likely to comment. People that were pleased with their experience probably don't care as much about the article so they either don't comment or don't read it at all.
In this case, people that hated going to college (or hated the idea of going) are more likely to comment. People that were pleased with their experience probably don't care as much about the article so they either don't comment or don't read it at all.
> where did that overwhelming hate for higher education come from?
Culture war. Same place Trump came from.
Culture war. Same place Trump came from.
I see you haven't read a lot of right wing media over the past 20 years.
hashkb(1)
Not sure what the HN position is on commenting bots, but can we automate this process? Someone has to do it every single time a NYT/WSJ/WAPO article gets posted.
Agreed, the web links haven't been working for me for a while.
Did not expect to see my Tigers featured when I clicked on the link. Clemson has been exploding over the past 20 years. It’s a special place.
The former president set a goal to become a top 20 public university. At the time, Clemson was around 70. I want to say it took close to 9 years but they finally did it. That mission directed a whole host of changes around the school to improve.
Some things were university wide like the "communications across the curriculum" program, that eventually developed into the Pearce Center (http://pearce.caah.clemson.edu/programs/waccac/). That primarily came from businesses telling the school that they were getting graduates who were technically sound but had difficulty working with non-technical people.
They embraced the research focus of the university with the Creative Inquiry program (https://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/watt/creative-inq...). I can't remember the name of the program, but at one point part of the curriculum was to have cross-major teams assisting with different professor's research projects on campus. You might have an agriculture professor with a team consisting of students from psychology, computer engineering, accounting, architecture, etc.
They developed the Clemson ICAR facility (http://cuicar.com/) in Greenville to capitalize on the automotive presence there along with undergrad to doctoral programs on automotive engineering...where the students actually design and build a car (https://jalopnik.com/this-mini-concept-car-was-developed-by-...).
Also moved the entire MBA program to downtown Greenville to be more accessible to people working. Clemson is very rural, so that was a challenge.
Exciting times at the school. :-)
It even include going as far as an academic review committee for football recruits. It blew up around 2007 when the committee told the coaches they couldn’t recruit a top wide receiver who then turned around and went to UNC...years later we found out why.
The former president set a goal to become a top 20 public university. At the time, Clemson was around 70. I want to say it took close to 9 years but they finally did it. That mission directed a whole host of changes around the school to improve.
Some things were university wide like the "communications across the curriculum" program, that eventually developed into the Pearce Center (http://pearce.caah.clemson.edu/programs/waccac/). That primarily came from businesses telling the school that they were getting graduates who were technically sound but had difficulty working with non-technical people.
They embraced the research focus of the university with the Creative Inquiry program (https://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/watt/creative-inq...). I can't remember the name of the program, but at one point part of the curriculum was to have cross-major teams assisting with different professor's research projects on campus. You might have an agriculture professor with a team consisting of students from psychology, computer engineering, accounting, architecture, etc.
They developed the Clemson ICAR facility (http://cuicar.com/) in Greenville to capitalize on the automotive presence there along with undergrad to doctoral programs on automotive engineering...where the students actually design and build a car (https://jalopnik.com/this-mini-concept-car-was-developed-by-...).
Also moved the entire MBA program to downtown Greenville to be more accessible to people working. Clemson is very rural, so that was a challenge.
Exciting times at the school. :-)
It even include going as far as an academic review committee for football recruits. It blew up around 2007 when the committee told the coaches they couldn’t recruit a top wide receiver who then turned around and went to UNC...years later we found out why.
The bottom tier called out in this article are failing, above all else, because they lack a sense of place and purpose and instead make decisions marked by insecurity.
I have a whole lot to say on this issue so I'll try and keep it briefish...context, I'm finishing up my PhD in Engineering Education at a 'top tier' university. I also have a BS and MS in an engineering discipline.
Several friends in my program, as well as myself, have been applying for faculty jobs this year. Two of us have experience as technical founders, as working engineers, have prior experience teaching engineering, and now have PhDs in how to teach engineering well.
More than one teaching focused university has specifically told us that our degrees in teaching engineering are DISQUALIFYING to teach engineering at their schools. They will only take PhDs in that field of engineering. Those students, because of the nature of modern research universities, are often explicitly discouraged from developing teaching expertise - it distracts from the research their advisers need accomplished to get tenure there. So you have schools that produce future faculty discouraging them from getting the preparation needed for the majority of faculty jobs, and the schools that do the majority of teaching not interested in educational expertise.
One department head specifically told me during a phone interview they didn't see how a degree in how to teach engineering would be relevant to what they do. That school advertises that it's focused entirely on undergraduate engineering education, does not have graduate students, and rewards tenure almost entirely based on teaching performance. I pointed out that I had two degree in their discipline, worked as an engineer in the field for years, had already been teaching engineering before I returned to graduate school, and went back to school specifically to learn how to teach better. Silence. The last person they hired (who has become a friend/mentee of mine) went straight through from their BS to MS to PhD in a single engineering discipline. No teaching experience and no industry experience - but a PhD in the field.
The trend there doesn't just apply to teaching, it applies to research and to broader visions of what a university can or should be.
Really, summarized, the issues we are seeing are issues of strategy - but that is a dirty word at universities. The schools have all, teaching as well as research focused, managed to entirely divorce Schein's three levels of culture from each other. They have artifacts they use for promotion, tenure, and measuring the school's activity. Many have ceased to try and argue those artifacts are linked to the values that they espouse. They simply state they are linked and then stigmatize anyone who points out otherwise.
At many schools, the faculty pathologically fear losing input on governance yet are unwilling to contribute to running of the university in a meaningful way. They complain about perpetually rising tenure standards, but they are the ones enforcing those standards. Trying to engage in these discussions is a dirty word because that would require them to confront things outside of their bubble. Trying to individualize isn't within the capacity of the faculty because ongoing disciplinary ossification, narrowing, and inlooking. It also isn't in the capacity of the outside managers they bring in to run the 'business' side - because they don't have the foggiest understanding of how education works, and get stuck on traditional metrics for business success and solutions that prevent any real change.
Its easy to blame sports, and they sure don't help, but the culture of the way universities are run - lacking in any reflection, self-awareness, or broader world view. It isn't complying with title IX, but thats a convenient scapegoat. It isn't building nice dorms, that's a symptom not a cause. Each school looks up the ladder of rankings and then does their damnedest to make themselves look like the school above them. In an attempt to 'compete' they all actively commodify themselves.
As an academic I find it sad. As an engineer/entrepreneur I find it frustrating. As a citizen I find it actively dangerous. In the broadest sense, these aren't just problems of education, they are problems of a society that (on the whole) seeks a black and white understanding of the world and seeks an education system that reproduces what it thinks it wants, rather than what it could be or might need later.
I have a whole lot to say on this issue so I'll try and keep it briefish...context, I'm finishing up my PhD in Engineering Education at a 'top tier' university. I also have a BS and MS in an engineering discipline.
Several friends in my program, as well as myself, have been applying for faculty jobs this year. Two of us have experience as technical founders, as working engineers, have prior experience teaching engineering, and now have PhDs in how to teach engineering well.
More than one teaching focused university has specifically told us that our degrees in teaching engineering are DISQUALIFYING to teach engineering at their schools. They will only take PhDs in that field of engineering. Those students, because of the nature of modern research universities, are often explicitly discouraged from developing teaching expertise - it distracts from the research their advisers need accomplished to get tenure there. So you have schools that produce future faculty discouraging them from getting the preparation needed for the majority of faculty jobs, and the schools that do the majority of teaching not interested in educational expertise.
One department head specifically told me during a phone interview they didn't see how a degree in how to teach engineering would be relevant to what they do. That school advertises that it's focused entirely on undergraduate engineering education, does not have graduate students, and rewards tenure almost entirely based on teaching performance. I pointed out that I had two degree in their discipline, worked as an engineer in the field for years, had already been teaching engineering before I returned to graduate school, and went back to school specifically to learn how to teach better. Silence. The last person they hired (who has become a friend/mentee of mine) went straight through from their BS to MS to PhD in a single engineering discipline. No teaching experience and no industry experience - but a PhD in the field.
The trend there doesn't just apply to teaching, it applies to research and to broader visions of what a university can or should be.
Really, summarized, the issues we are seeing are issues of strategy - but that is a dirty word at universities. The schools have all, teaching as well as research focused, managed to entirely divorce Schein's three levels of culture from each other. They have artifacts they use for promotion, tenure, and measuring the school's activity. Many have ceased to try and argue those artifacts are linked to the values that they espouse. They simply state they are linked and then stigmatize anyone who points out otherwise.
At many schools, the faculty pathologically fear losing input on governance yet are unwilling to contribute to running of the university in a meaningful way. They complain about perpetually rising tenure standards, but they are the ones enforcing those standards. Trying to engage in these discussions is a dirty word because that would require them to confront things outside of their bubble. Trying to individualize isn't within the capacity of the faculty because ongoing disciplinary ossification, narrowing, and inlooking. It also isn't in the capacity of the outside managers they bring in to run the 'business' side - because they don't have the foggiest understanding of how education works, and get stuck on traditional metrics for business success and solutions that prevent any real change.
Its easy to blame sports, and they sure don't help, but the culture of the way universities are run - lacking in any reflection, self-awareness, or broader world view. It isn't complying with title IX, but thats a convenient scapegoat. It isn't building nice dorms, that's a symptom not a cause. Each school looks up the ladder of rankings and then does their damnedest to make themselves look like the school above them. In an attempt to 'compete' they all actively commodify themselves.
As an academic I find it sad. As an engineer/entrepreneur I find it frustrating. As a citizen I find it actively dangerous. In the broadest sense, these aren't just problems of education, they are problems of a society that (on the whole) seeks a black and white understanding of the world and seeks an education system that reproduces what it thinks it wants, rather than what it could be or might need later.
That must be incredibly frustrating. I'm actually doing a PhD myself (in ECE) but I recently decided to get my MS and take a break to work in industry. My end goal is to get a PhD however. But I hear that the transition from full-time to grad school is pretty challenging. What were the issues you faced, if any?
I think one of the biggest issues in faculty hiring is that research experience and a strong publication record outweigh any form of teaching experience.
But this doesn't make sense at all, simply because ~30-50% of a full faculty member's time is spent teaching (including prep time, office hours, etc). More importantly, the fact that you have a couple of publications in top tier conferences does not imply that you know how to teach!
I think one of the biggest issues in faculty hiring is that research experience and a strong publication record outweigh any form of teaching experience.
But this doesn't make sense at all, simply because ~30-50% of a full faculty member's time is spent teaching (including prep time, office hours, etc). More importantly, the fact that you have a couple of publications in top tier conferences does not imply that you know how to teach!
>>That must be incredibly frustrating.
It's more disheartening for how I look at my field than personally frustrating. One of my favorite anecdotes from this whole process is that, in parallel, to hearing that line of logic from multiple schools I had two different startups express interest in hiring me for technical positions. It has continued to validate my own belief that I'm a reasonably credible person who is well prepared to do what I want to do for a career...the people doing the hiring just can't separate their own beliefs from what the needs of their organization are. It's funny because that is exactly identical to the results of a study we recently published on why engineering students struggle with design thinking - they can't separate their own subjective reality from a shared objective one.
>>I hear that the transition from full-time to grad school is pretty challenging. What were the issues you faced, if any? Its...interesting. The big issue was ego. I'm sure I have one I'm not super aware of but I make a really itnentional effort not to talk out my ass. I sat in a meeting where people were describing the 'needs' of engineering employers. No one in that room besides me had ever worked as an engineer, hired an engineer, or managed an engineer. But because I was a grad student they didn't see my input as useful. That pattern, of role based power supplanting all, is commonly used. It is also a pretty strong indicator of competence - those who use it are less likely to be so.
I would add that adherence to process (but not formal process, always implicit process) is hugely valued in my experience. Even more so than when I worked in manufacturing.
>>I hear that the transition from full-time to grad school is pretty challenging. What were the issues you faced, if any? Its...interesting. The big issue was ego. I'm sure I have one I'm not super aware of but I make a really itnentional effort not to talk out my ass. I sat in a meeting where people were describing the 'needs' of engineering employers. No one in that room besides me had ever worked as an engineer, hired an engineer, or managed an engineer. But because I was a grad student they didn't see my input as useful. That pattern, of role based power supplanting all, is commonly used. It is also a pretty strong indicator of competence - those who use it are less likely to be so.
I would add that adherence to process (but not formal process, always implicit process) is hugely valued in my experience. Even more so than when I worked in manufacturing.
Here's a hypothesis...
When you have top school's materials online, it makes no sense to go to a second tier, or n-tier school other than for the networking. And by definition a 'n-tier' school is not going to be all that great at providing networking opportunities.
Would you take a machine learning course from an unknown, likely outdated professor when you could listen to Andrew Ng for free?
What the internet has brought is a 'winner takes all' for education.
Would you take a machine learning course from an unknown, likely outdated professor when you could listen to Andrew Ng for free?
What the internet has brought is a 'winner takes all' for education.
I DID take a machine learning course from an unknown professor. One he was just doing as a fluke! It was incredible. I went from having zero background in Statistics or Machine learning, not even really understanding what they were, to applying several different techniques to exam large, million row datasets, using tools I had zero experience with, as well as learning how to interpret the results and avoid statistical pitfalls like overfitting and misinterpreting things.
Compare this to when I tried to take an AI class online offered by stanford, and I had to drop it because it was impossible to grok.
The difference? One professor actually taught, and the other simply wrote inscrutable symbols on the board and expected you to interpret it yourself. When we informed the professor on our lack of requisite statistics background, the unknown one simply adjusted his lessons to introduce the necessary concepts, while the Massive online course simply required a thorough background in probability to watch even the first few lectures.
Independent learning can kind of scale, in half-hearted ways, but actual TEACHING does not scale. Real teaching requires one on one effort.
I went to a low tier university because I had zero chance of getting actual access to an MIT professor, and the local ones were good enough to teach me everything I needed to have a real chance in the field.
Compare this to when I tried to take an AI class online offered by stanford, and I had to drop it because it was impossible to grok.
The difference? One professor actually taught, and the other simply wrote inscrutable symbols on the board and expected you to interpret it yourself. When we informed the professor on our lack of requisite statistics background, the unknown one simply adjusted his lessons to introduce the necessary concepts, while the Massive online course simply required a thorough background in probability to watch even the first few lectures.
Independent learning can kind of scale, in half-hearted ways, but actual TEACHING does not scale. Real teaching requires one on one effort.
I went to a low tier university because I had zero chance of getting actual access to an MIT professor, and the local ones were good enough to teach me everything I needed to have a real chance in the field.
I think this is a little narrow but perfectly valid. People get all squingy in my program when I bring up the idea of what value a college or program creates. They assume I'm being arch-capitalist about it.
The schools don't create value for students because they are bad at teaching. Having all the materials online is not learning, and its not good education.
But, the fact that students can create a better learning environment themselves than can a faculty member who knows the content and works at a university teaching the conten should be shocking.
The schools don't create value for students because they are bad at teaching. Having all the materials online is not learning, and its not good education.
But, the fact that students can create a better learning environment themselves than can a faculty member who knows the content and works at a university teaching the conten should be shocking.
Counterpoint: Ng's Coursera machine learning course is outdated now, unlikely to ever be updated, and focuses on applications of old algorithms without teaching the underlying fundamentals.
appeal to theory: The issue with education is rarely the currency of content. To assert that models education primarily as an information transfer process, which it isn't...or at least shouldn't be.
thanks for sharing this. people need to hear this more. perhaps write up a Medium article that can make its way around to a journalist. pleas continue to fight the good fight. we need more people educators like you. god speed
It's one of those things I'm regularly 'warned off' doing stuff like that because the biggest sin in academia is making observations about the emperors clothes. A friend an I have a draft of something that we plan to submit once we both have jobs.
Schools always want to hire 'collegiality' candidates...who get along with folks. They have warped the definition of collegiality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperation_(politics)) to mean doesn't buck the system rather than respectfully disagree in furtherance of a shared purpose.
Schools always want to hire 'collegiality' candidates...who get along with folks. They have warped the definition of collegiality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperation_(politics)) to mean doesn't buck the system rather than respectfully disagree in furtherance of a shared purpose.
This makes sense. With average enrollment going up at the top, with the market growth in applicants less than that, eventually the bottom will lose out. Maybe there is nostalgia for some colleges be it history, alums, or what not. At the end of the day, students vote with their feet and if a college is not good enough, then it should go out of business.
I wonder how much of these circumstances stem from the fact that people do not want to have children as much as they used to, concentrating on their own needs? Perhaps it would be in the best interest of colleges to somehow show people that it is possible to have children and an interesting career?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Besides the notion that so many jobs expected it when I was starting out, I'm not really sure what good it did for me. Put it this way, I couldn't even tell you where my diploma is. But once a month I still go online and pay for it.