PDA

View Full Version : Education The Future of Higher Education


BucEyedPea
11-19-2009, 09:51 AM
Greedy Peoples Republic of California aka government needs money!
"Cops vs. students protesting a 32% tuition increase at UCLA–in a recession!"—Lew Rockwell


<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/33UU6MKuWSE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/33UU6MKuWSE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

NewChief
11-19-2009, 10:05 AM
At times, I think that Higher Education is becoming a worthless scam. The concept that everyone needs to go to college is completely screwing up our public secondary education as well as higher education. It's watering down college courses and letting people put off "real life" so that 21 is the new 16.

Jenson71
11-19-2009, 10:10 AM
Why protest the university? Why not protest the state? It was the state that cut the funds causing the university to have no other but to raise the tuition. Even cutting some of the massive overspending for adminstration would not have evaded tuition increase.

blaise
11-19-2009, 10:14 AM
Why protest the university? Why not protest the state? It was the state that cut the funds causing the university to have no other but to raise the tuition. Even cutting some of the massive overspending for adminstration would not have evaded tuition increase.

They don't actually care. They just want to protest something because they think it gives their lives meaning. Finding out a way to protest the state would take too much energy.

BucEyedPea
11-19-2009, 10:17 AM
Why protest the university? Why not protest the state? It was the state that cut the funds causing the university to have no other but to raise the tuition. Even cutting some of the massive overspending for adminstration would not have evaded tuition increase.

I put that up to protest the state.

Jenson71
11-19-2009, 10:49 AM
The future of higher education: well, definitely in the short-term it's going to be more costly and everywhere, budget cuts are going to be made, tuition is going to rise. So students will pay more for less.

A corporate culture will continue to encroach upon the university. Spending a semester at Disneyland will continue to be worth as much as 9 credits in sociology, ancient history, and literature. As the state coffers dry up, the continuing reliance upon corporations and industries for funding will increase.

Liberal arts will be choking for some semblence of life. More students will enter Marketing and Management for financial prospects.

Those students still interested in the liberal arts will move mostly to "Women's Studies" or "African-American Studies Post Civil War" or "Women's African-American Studies and Domestic Violence" or "Gay/Lesbian/Women/Minority Studies with Emphasis on Gays and Lesbians in Late 20th Century Canada".

Being a history major is not enough. You have to specialize. You have to be an expert on one particular thing, especially if you want to go to grad school.

More students will have taken "college courses" in high school. They will earn credits for things like AP Literature by getting a 3/5 on a test. This of course makes the high school look better, and is supposed to save the colleges money. Of course, as fine as some of our high school teachers are, it's not, and never should there be, be a college course taught in high school. The people who get hurt are a.) the student and b.) the professor when they teach a student who has no idea what's going on because they took their prerequisite college course in high school

BucEyedPea
11-19-2009, 10:51 AM
The future of higher education: well, definitely in the short-term it's going to be more costly and everywhere, budget cuts are going to be made, tuition is going to rise. So students will pay more for less.

'Eh noooooooo! Tuition has risen sharply due to excessive govt intervention attempting to make college more affordable resulting in it being more expensive.

Jenson71
11-19-2009, 10:53 AM
'Eh noooooooo! Tuition has risen sharply due to excessive govt intervention making college more affordable resulting in it being more expensive.

You're going to have to flesh that argument out. As it stands, it's just one statement contradicting another.

RaiderH8r
11-19-2009, 10:56 AM
Schooling and education are different things and this nation's Schooling System has failed at educating for far too long.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iG9CE55wbtY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iG9CE55wbtY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Garcia Bronco
11-19-2009, 10:57 AM
At times, I think that Higher Education is becoming a worthless scam. The concept that everyone needs to go to college is completely screwing up our public secondary education as well as higher education. It's watering down college courses and letting people put off "real life" so that 21 is the new 16.

Indeed

BucEyedPea
11-19-2009, 11:13 AM
You're going to have to flesh that argument out. As it stands, it's just one statement contradicting another.

Nope, it's just the law of supply and demand.

Jenson71
11-19-2009, 11:16 AM
Nope, it's just the law of supply and demand.

Oh, I think I see. So college being more affordable for the student = college being more expensive for the state?

Well, what if today college isn't more affordable for the student than it was say, 30 years ago?

Norman Einstein
11-19-2009, 11:43 AM
At times, I think that Higher Education is becoming a worthless scam. The concept that everyone needs to go to college is completely screwing up our public secondary education as well as higher education. It's watering down college courses and letting people put off "real life" so that 21 is the new 16.

If you were going to hire someone for a position would you dictate the applicants MUST have a Bachelors degree or higher and discount some person that has done the exact same job with 20 years of successful experience?

It happens all the time. Some college grads are just about aas useless as a newborn. They might have the basics but not any working knowledge.

Take an schooled structural engineer with 20 years experience designing structures successfully and compare him to a fresh graduate from a decent university. You would get more bang for the bucks from the experienced guy, the recent grad might have some great times learning from his mistakes, but without a mentor that knows what he is doing the newbie just might kill someone with unchecked mistakes.

I used structural engineers because you see some pretty good crash and burns on TV from faulty designs on big structures.

Calcountry
11-19-2009, 12:07 PM
Why protest the university? .Well, it is cranking out the likes of you, that's reason enough. :D

BucEyedPea
11-19-2009, 12:26 PM
Well, it is cranking out the likes of you, that's reason enough. :D

:)

Hydrae
11-19-2009, 12:30 PM
At times, I think that Higher Education is becoming a worthless scam. The concept that everyone needs to go to college is completely screwing up our public secondary education as well as higher education. It's watering down college courses and letting people put off "real life" so that 21 is the new 16.

Becoming?

I am 49 years old and am getting ready to go back to school. The reason is that after 30 years in various fields I have had to realize that without a piece of paper my opportunities are limited at best. I lost a job 3 years ago due to outsourcing and the job I am in currently is about a 40% decrease in pay. My concern at this point is that if this job were to go away I would probably be looking at another step down the earnings ladder.

My supervisor last week asked me to do a small write up regarding an issue we had here. When I completed it her response was that she should have had me around to write her papers in college. I mentioned that I did not have a college education. Even though I am a smart person etc, etc, I have a hard time getting in the door for employment. Once in the door I have never had a problem, I am a good worker who looks out for the customer. But in today's world, without a piece of paper, no one will even seriously look at me. When I was looking for work, I can not tell you how many times I heard about what a pleasure it was to talk to me, I seemed like a nice guy but they were going in anther direction. I know in my heart this is a mistake on their part but I need to be able to break through the problems of not having that stupid piece of paper.

/rant

bowener
11-19-2009, 12:35 PM
Why protest the university? Why not protest the state? It was the state that cut the funds causing the university to have no other but to raise the tuition. Even cutting some of the massive overspending for adminstration would not have evaded tuition increase.

Well, had they been able to afford their education they would have known they should protest the state or perhaps they are protesting the state by attacking the particular face of the beast that has harmed them the most.

NewChief
11-19-2009, 12:42 PM
Becoming?

I am 49 years old and am getting ready to go back to school. The reason is that after 30 years in various fields I have had to realize that without a piece of paper my opportunities are limited at best. I lost a job 3 years ago due to outsourcing and the job I am in currently is about a 40% decrease in pay. My concern at this point is that if this job were to go away I would probably be looking at another step down the earnings ladder.

My supervisor last week asked me to do a small write up regarding an issue we had here. When I completed it her response was that she should have had me around to write her papers in college. I mentioned that I did not have a college education. Even though I am a smart person etc, etc, I have a hard time getting in the door for employment. Once in the door I have never had a problem, I am a good worker who looks out for the customer. But in today's world, without a piece of paper, no one will even seriously look at me. When I was looking for work, I can not tell you how many times I heard about what a pleasure it was to talk to me, I seemed like a nice guy but they were going in anther direction. I know in my heart this is a mistake on their part but I need to be able to break through the problems of not having that stupid piece of paper.

/rant

That's seriously a real shame, and I feel for you. I was fortunate enough in my life to be over educated, due to my family's finances and expectations. Not something I regret, but I don't see the education as really giving me any better skill set or advantage over other people in life. The problem is that the slip of paper is going to become meaningless in the near future as well, because we're trying to make it so that everyone has one. If everyone has something, then it has very little value. Even an economics idiot like myself understands that. The shame is that we're going to be paying a ton of money for something of very little value that everyone has... where's the sense in that?

BucEyedPea
11-19-2009, 12:44 PM
Wow NewPhin, you're posts are awesome in this thread.

NewChief
11-19-2009, 12:47 PM
Wow NewPhin, you're posts are awesome in this thread.

Well, I also understand how creative thinking and knowledge based economy are going to be necessary to drive our economic engine in the future. I know the idea is that more people going to college gives our country more of an edge in the future by allowing us to lead the way in innovation. That being said, I'm afraid that the push to educate everyone will rob the college experience of the very things we hope it can impart.

All of that being said, I'm not completely sold on this idea, and I'm not sure as to the solution. Just things I've been kicking around lately.

Edit: And my god, my style of writing on here has just gotten atrocious. So much redundancy in phrasing. I remember when I first started posting here years ago, I really thought out and carefully worded my posts. Those days are obviously gone.

RJ
11-19-2009, 12:50 PM
At times, I think that Higher Education is becoming a worthless scam. The concept that everyone needs to go to college is completely screwing up our public secondary education as well as higher education. It's watering down college courses and letting people put off "real life" so that 21 is the new 16.


I agree. But I guess as long as our manufacturing jobs keep going overseas, there will be less and less jobs for non-college educated folks. I'm constantly amazed, though, at all the young people I meet who have nothing to show for college other than a degree.

petegz28
11-19-2009, 12:53 PM
I agree. But I guess as long as our manufacturing jobs keep going overseas, there will be less and less jobs for non-college educated folks. I'm constantly amazed, though, at all the young people I meet who have nothing to show for college other than a degree.


I see plenty of college educated idiots everyday. College is great but it is not guarantee of anything. Give me someone with actual work experience over somone with a piece of paper that says they are allegedly "capable".

donkhater
11-19-2009, 12:56 PM
This is a great article by George Will on possibly how the whole 'need a college degree' stance came about:


Supreme Discrimination
George Will
Sunday, January 04, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Like pebbles tossed into ponds, important Supreme Court rulings radiate ripples of consequences. Consider a 1971 Supreme Court decision that supposedly applied but actually altered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

During debate on the act, prescient critics worried that it might be construed to forbid giving prospective employees tests that might produce what was later called, in the 1971 case, a "disparate impact" on certain preferred minorities. To assuage these critics, the final act stipulated that employers could use "professionally developed ability tests" that were not "designed, intended or used to discriminate."

Furthermore, two Senate sponsors of the act insisted that it did not require "that employers abandon bona fide qualification tests where, because of differences in background and educations, members of some groups are able to perform better on these tests than members of other groups." What subsequently happened is recounted in "Griggs v. Duke Power: Implications for College Credentialing," a paper written by Bryan O'Keefe, a law student, and Richard Vedder, a professor of economics at Ohio University.

In 1964, there were more than 2,000 personnel tests available to employers. But already an Illinois state official had ruled that a standard ability test, used by Motorola, was illegal because it was unfair to "disadvantaged groups."

Before 1964, Duke Power had discriminated against blacks in hiring and promotion. After the 1964 act, the company changed its policies, establishing a high school equivalence requirement for all workers, and allowing them to meet that requirement by achieving minimum scores on two widely used aptitude tests, including one that is used today by almost every NFL team to measure players' learning potentials.

Plaintiffs in the Griggs case argued that the high school and testing requirements discriminated against blacks. A unanimous Supreme Court, disregarding the relevant legislative history, held that Congress intended the 1964 act to proscribe not only overt discrimination but also "practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation." The court added:

"The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited."

Thus a heavy burden of proof was placed on employers, including that of proving that any test that produced a "disparate impact" detrimental to certain minorities was a "business necessity" for various particular jobs. In 1972, Congress codified the Griggs misinterpretation of what Congress had done in 1964. And after a 1989 Supreme Court ruling partially undid Griggs, Congress in 1991 repudiated that 1989 ruling and essentially reimposed the burden of proof on employers.

Small wonder, then, that many employers, fearing endless litigation about multiple uncertainties, threw up their hands and, to avoid legal liability, threw out intelligence and aptitude tests for potential employees. Instead, they began requiring college degrees as indices of applicants' satisfactory intelligence and diligence.

This is, of course, just one reason why college attendance increased from 5.8 million in 1970 to 17.5 million in 2005. But it probably had a, well, disparate impact by making employment more difficult for minorities. O'Keefe and Vedder write:

"Qualified minorities who performed well on an intelligence or aptitude test and would have been offered a job directly 30 or 40 years ago are now compelled to attend a college or university for four years and incur significant costs. For some young people from poorer families, those costs are out of reach."

Indeed, by turning college degrees into indispensable credentials for many of society's better jobs, this series of events increased demand for degrees and, O'Keefe and Vedder say, contributed to "an environment of aggressive tuition increases." Furthermore they reasonably wonder whether this supposed civil rights victory, which erected barriers between high school graduates and high-paying jobs, has exacerbated the widening income disparities between high school and college graduates.

Griggs and its consequences are timely reminders of the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is increasingly pertinent as America's regulatory state becomes increasingly determined to fine-tune our complex society. That law holds that the consequences of government actions often are different than, and even contrary to, the intended consequences.

Soon the Obama administration will arrive, bristling like a very progressive porcupine with sharp plans -- plans for restoring economic health by "demand management," for altering the distribution of income by using tax changes and supporting more muscular labor unions, for cooling the planet by such measures as burning more food as fuel and for many additional improvements. At least, those will be the administration's intended consequences.

donkhater
11-19-2009, 12:58 PM
Here's another by Stossel around the same time:

January 28, 2009
The College Scam
By John Stossel

A college diploma is supposed to be the ticket to the good life. Colleges and politicians tell students, "Your life will be much better if you go to college. On average during your lifetime you will earn a million dollars more if you get a bachelor's degree." Barack Obama, stumping on the campaign trail, said, "We expect all our children not only to graduate high school, but to graduate college."

Rachele Percel heard the promises. She borrowed big to pay about $24,000 a year to attend Rivier College in New Hampshire. She got a degree in human development. "I was told just to take out the loans and get the degree because when you graduate you're going to be able to get that good job and pay them off no problem," she told me for last week's "20/20".

But for three years she failed to find a decent job. Now she holds a low-level desk job doing work she says she could have done straight out of high school. And she's still $85,000 in debt. This month she had to move out of her apartment because she couldn't pay the rent.

The promise about college? "I definitely feel like it was a scam," says Rachele.

Her college wrote us that that many of its graduates have launched successful careers. But Rachele's problem isn't uncommon. A recent survey asked thousands of students: Would you go to your college again? About 40 percent said no.

"The bachelor's degree? It's America's most overrated product," says education consultant and career counselor Dr. Marty Nemko.

Nemko is one of many who are critical of that often-cited million-dollar bonus. "There could be no more misleading statistic," he says. It includes billionaire super-earners who skew the average. More importantly, the statistic misleads because many successful college kids would have been successful whether they went to college or not.

"You could take the pool of college-bound students and lock them in a closet for four years -- and they're going to earn more money," Nemko says.

Those are the kids who already tend to be more intelligent, harder-working and more persistent.

But universities still throw around that million-dollar number. Arizona State recently used it to justify a tuition hike.

Charles Murray's recent book, "Real Education", argues that many students just aren't able to handle college work. Graduation statistics seem to bear him out.

"If you're in the bottom 40 percent of your high school class," Nemko says, "you have a very small chance of graduating, even if you are given eight and a half years."

Colleges still actively recruit those kids, and eight years later, many of those students find themselves with no degree and lots of debt. They think of themselves as failures.

"And the immoral thing about it is that the colleges do not disclose that!"

For many kids, career counselors told us, it's often smarter to acquire specific marketable skills at a community college or technical school, or to work as an apprentice for some business. That makes you more employable.

Vocational education pays off for many. Electricians today make on average $48,000 a year. Plumbers make $47,000. That's more than the average American earns. But some people look down on vocational school. A degree from a four-year college is considered first class. A vocational-school degree is not.

"More people need to realize that you don't have to get a four-year degree to be successful," says Steven Eilers, who went through an automotive program and then continued his education by getting a paying job as an apprentice in a car-repair center. He's making good money, and he has zero student-loan debt.

Eilers story is no fluke. In the past year, while hundreds of thousands of white-collar jobs vanished, the auto-repair industry added jobs.

Self-serving college presidents and politicians should drop the scam. Higher enrollments and government loan programs may be good for them, but they are making lots of our kids miserable and poor. For many, the good life can be lived without college.

Reaper16
11-19-2009, 01:25 PM
Edit: And my god, my style of writing on here has just gotten atrocious. So much redundancy in phrasing. I remember when I first started posting here years ago, I really thought out and carefully worded my posts. Those days are obviously gone.
Yeah, I pay no mind to phrasing my posts in such a way as to sound impressive. Its hard for me to give a damn about it, and that's coming from someone whose art is completely grounded in the specific choice and combination of words.

On-topic: I echo NewPhin's thoughts on this subject. It was frustrating as an undergraduate to see so many students who clearly didn't want to be there for the educational aspects of the ol' college try. It was frustrating to see some departments begin to cater to the kids who are there only for a degree and some antecedent good times.

Jenson71
11-19-2009, 02:27 PM
This is a depressing thread.

I'm in favor of stripping everything fun out of college. No more multi-million dollar wellness centers, no more multi-million dollar dining centers, a drastically reduced intercollegiate sports tradition, no more student unions with big screen TVs. Make college as unattractive as it can be aside from the academic pursuits, and then, only the academic pursuer will be attracted.

A lot of people are getting paid too much. Coaches are getting paid too much. Too much money is going into sports. Department heads are getting paid too much. Presidents, vice-presidents, provosts, etc, etc, are just paper shuffling bureaucrats sucking money out of taxpayers and students.

But there has also been a decline in state funds for colleges. That problem needs to be addressed as well.

underEJ
11-19-2009, 02:32 PM
This is a fantastic discussion. I have told my educational story over and over, and while I am not advocating that everyone skip college or do what I did, it really is the right choice for many career interests, but I get nothing but frowns form people who think it is irresponsible to tell kids about it. Everyone who goes into college with a career path in mind already should do the research to find out if it is really a requirement.

The second summer of college, I took several internships in a variety of capacities in my chosen field, film. I had one at a light rental house, one at a casting agency, and one at a production office that was making T2. I did the job required, but also was conducting a survey of the other people I encountered as to how they got there, and what their back story was. Between the three jobs, I got to meet a few of just about every job position in the whole industry.

The results were clear, I was just as likely to find a good path with a degree as without. Being confident in my own brightness and ability to stand out, I quit school with no loans, and set about to find my way in, while continuing to take classes of interest at a variety of schools for my own enjoyment.

It took roughly 3 years of bar tending while doing free assistant jobs to land the one that would get me started. Yes, a year longer than a traditional 4 year program would have taken, but I had enough experience already from the unpaid work to rise above the college hires in a hurry. I have changed jobs repeatedly, worked internationally, and am always looking for the next opportunity, and only once has anyone even asked where I went to school.

There are many careers where this would be possible for kids with enough guts and initiative. Doctors, scientists, and lawyers.... go to college!

I don't have an answer for kids who don't know what they want because community college, taking time off to figure it out, or other options are unattractive to parents who want to prepare their kids for self-sufficiency.

blaise
11-19-2009, 02:38 PM
This is a depressing thread.

I'm in favor of stripping everything fun out of college. No more multi-million dollar wellness centers, no more multi-million dollar dining centers, a drastically reduced intercollegiate sports tradition, no more student unions with big screen TVs. Make college as unattractive as it can be aside from the academic pursuits, and then, only the academic pursuer will be attracted.

A lot of people are getting paid too much. Coaches are getting paid too much. Too much money is going into sports. Department heads are getting paid too much. Presidents, vice-presidents, provosts, etc, etc, are just paper shuffling bureaucrats sucking money out of taxpayers and students.

But there has also been a decline in state funds for colleges. That problem needs to be addressed as well.

I don't see why the notion of "college" has to be so cut and dried though. Why can't there be different schools with different approaches? Acedemic pursuers can still find plenty of schools where they can get what they want. If college X has one approach that entails sports, wellness centers, etc., what does college Y care?
And too much money may be going into sports in some schools, but there's others that recoup that money and more by spending it as an investment.

BucEyedPea
11-19-2009, 02:42 PM
But there has also been a decline in state funds for colleges. That problem needs to be addressed as well.
That may not be a bad thing. As those with the stronger desire to go and who have the discipline will work harder to go which really is a better way. It's precisely govt intervention in education markets by providing more funds to go which has resulted in higher tuition because it pushes up demand which drives the prices higher. That's the supply and demand that I was referring too.

Then most employers won't depend on that degree so much. But more needs to be learned at the lower levels of education and learned better than whats being passed off today. That is one reason employers want to see that degree. That and the idea that a person will work harder to get ahead being a desirable trait in an employee.

NewChief
11-19-2009, 02:43 PM
This is a depressing thread.

I'm in favor of stripping everything fun out of college. No more multi-million dollar wellness centers, no more multi-million dollar dining centers, a drastically reduced intercollegiate sports tradition, no more student unions with big screen TVs. Make college as unattractive as it can be aside from the academic pursuits, and then, only the academic pursuer will be attracted.

A lot of people are getting paid too much. Coaches are getting paid too much. Too much money is going into sports. Department heads are getting paid too much. Presidents, vice-presidents, provosts, etc, etc, are just paper shuffling bureaucrats sucking money out of taxpayers and students.

But there has also been a decline in state funds for colleges. That problem needs to be addressed as well.


Haha. You should read Neal Stephenson's Anathem (http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/09/11/Stephenson/index1.html). You'd get a kick out of it.

Calcountry
11-19-2009, 02:53 PM
That's seriously a real shame, and I feel for you. I was fortunate enough in my life to be over educated, due to my family's finances and expectations. Not something I regret, but I don't see the education as really giving me any better skill set or advantage over other people in life. The problem is that the slip of paper is going to become meaningless in the near future as well, because we're trying to make it so that everyone has one. If everyone has something, then it has very little value. Even an economics idiot like myself understands that. The shame is that we're going to be paying a ton of money for something of very little value that everyone has... where's the sense in that?Kind of like, everyone became a contractor, or a real estate agent after the dot com recession?

BY1401
11-19-2009, 03:34 PM
Take an schooled structural engineer with 20 years experience designing structures successfully and compare him to a fresh graduate from a decent university. You would get more bang for the bucks from the experienced guy, the recent grad might have some great times learning from his mistakes, but without a mentor that knows what he is doing the newbie just might kill someone with unchecked mistakes.

:spock:

The structural engineer with 20 years experience will also have at least his bachelor's degree and his professional license. In some states, he will have an additional structural license. The new graduate will not have a license and won't be able to stamp any plans. You only hire the the kid if you already have a registered engineer for him to work under or if job does not require him to stamp plans. Of course, if you do not have a registered engineer for him to work for, the position will not be attractive for the kid to take anyway.

Jenson71
11-19-2009, 03:47 PM
I don't see why the notion of "college" has to be so cut and dried though. Why can't there be different schools with different approaches? Acedemic pursuers can still find plenty of schools where they can get what they want. If college X has one approach that entails sports, wellness centers, etc., what does college Y care?
And too much money may be going into sports in some schools, but there's others that recoup that money and more by spending it as an investment.

No one is working together like that though. You don't have one college saying "oh if you want this and that, you shouldn't come here." They only say "We're getting that!"

If college X (Iowa State) has one approach that entails sports, wellness centers, etc., what does college Y (UNI) care? They care a lot because no high school kid is choosing Y over X.

I can't believe any of the athletic departments are recouping money. Maybe to run one or two sports, but not all, and if they want it to count, then those tickets, TV contracts, and concessions better be paying for scholarships. If not, if scholarships are coming out of state funds and alumni, then it's not worth it.

HonestChieffan
11-19-2009, 05:20 PM
Tuition needs to go up. How else can California fix what they have created? People there have to realize they have to pay for all the crap they keep adding onto the states list of stuff they have to provide. Its way bigger than tuition but tuition is a prime example where now that the state is broke, they have to get the money somewhere.

Every college that is state supported will in time have to face the fact that the customer has to pay the bills, not pass it on to become debt for the state.

Norman Einstein
11-19-2009, 05:21 PM
:spock:

The structural engineer with 20 years experience will also have at least his bachelor's degree and his professional license. In some states, he will have an additional structural license. The new graduate will not have a license and won't be able to stamp any plans. You only hire the the kid if you already have a registered engineer for him to work under or if job does not require him to stamp plans. Of course, if you do not have a registered engineer for him to work for, the position will not be attractive for the kid to take anyway.

Not necessarily. All structural engineers did not get there by going to college. Engineers that do not have a bachelors degree can be a PE. You also do not have to have a degree to be licensed.

blaise
11-19-2009, 05:33 PM
No one is working together like that though. You don't have one college saying "oh if you want this and that, you shouldn't come here." They only say "We're getting that!"

If college X (Iowa State) has one approach that entails sports, wellness centers, etc., what does college Y (UNI) care? They care a lot because no high school kid is choosing Y over X.

I can't believe any of the athletic departments are recouping money. Maybe to run one or two sports, but not all, and if they want it to count, then those tickets, TV contracts, and concessions better be paying for scholarships. If not, if scholarships are coming out of state funds and alumni, then it's not worth it.

If there's a market for college Y, the students will choose college Y. You yourself would be an example, right? If there's not a call for that type of educational style, then that's just the way it is. Colleges don't need to work together for that, they just need to decide on their goals and their approach and base their educational style on that. I thought there was a wide variety of liberal arts type courses to take at my school, and I took a lot of them, not to mention countless hours reading books at the libraries. I think at most colleges it is what you make it.
And some universities to recoup money from athletics. Plenty lose money, but not all. You have to take not only concessions, TV contracts and tickets, but also possible increases in donations by alumni who are proud of the university, in part due to the athletic program. Why would you say if money from sports isn't funneled into scholarships it isn't it? Simply because you feel athletics isn't a valuable part of the college experience doesn't mean everyone does. College is also about a diversity of experience. And I would think any direct profit in athletics would go to the university as a whole- libraries, classes, salaries, etc. Do you know that it doesn't?

Jenson71
11-19-2009, 05:45 PM
If there's a market for college Y, the students will choose college Y. You yourself would be an example, right?

Yeah, there is a market for college Y. In the real world, it's similar to college X. They compete with each other over trivial things like dining centers and nonsense. It's driven by students who decide with their cash. A horrible way of forming a university is to let high school graduates vote with loans and their parent's money. I really don't care if that's anti-market. I'm not interested in a university system that conforms to whatever 18 year olds find attractive.

I thought there was a wide variety of liberal arts type courses to take at my school, and I took a lot of them, not to mention countless hours reading books at the libraries. I think at most colleges it is what you make it.

Sure it is. And I want to make it better so it will be better. Trim the fat like the Council of Trent. That's what I'm advocating.

And some universities to recoup money from athletics. Plenty lose money, but not all. You have to take not only concessions, TV contracts and tickets, but also possible increases in donations by alumni who are proud of the university, in part due to the athletic program. Why would you say if money from sports isn't funneled into scholarships it isn't it? Simply because you feel athletics isn't a valuable part of the college experience doesn't mean everyone does. College is also about a diversity of experience. And I would think any direct profit in athletics would go to the university as a whole- libraries, classes, salaries, etc. Do you know that it doesn't?

I'm doubting that there is an overall profit from the athletic department. Do I know? No, I've heard both ways. Athletics can still be a valuable part of the college experience. I'm not for cutting athletics. I'm for reducing it's role. If there were no budget problems, then we can concentrate on football.

NewChief
11-19-2009, 05:48 PM
A fellow teacher I follow on twitter is at NCTE at the moment listening to Junot Diaz (author of the Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao) speak at the moment. He just said this:

Diaz: the univ have betrayed us going from education to accredidation. Students are seen as customers. Journey of approval not of discovery
Diaz: journey of discovery embraces mistakes, which are looked down upon in journey of approval.

blaise
11-19-2009, 06:01 PM
I'm not going to keep quoting, I just want to say this. The notion that "universities have betrayed us" and that type of thing is flawed thinking in my opinion. If there's many universities out there seeking to accredit rather that educate, then maybe people that want things to change need to stop looking at it in such black and white terms. Okay, a lot of universities seek to accredit. There's thousands of universities in this country. Is there not room for those types and other styles? To me, that's like a car manufacturer saying, "Well people want big fast cars. That's what they like, so we'll just build that." No, other companies make smaller cars. The fact that one university is accrediting large groups of students doesn't mean they all have to. And if you do go to a college that you decide doesn't fit, transfer. I transferred from a small school to a large one. My roommate transferred to Cornell and so did one of my best friends. I think saying "Universities have failed", or "universities should be this way instead" is totally impractical. You're not going to turn time back. If that's your plan you're wasting your time. A better approach would be to say, "This university offers this, and believes in this style. This one offers this and believes in this." I know of high schools that do things like that. Schools for the Arts and places like that. You mean to tell me they can do that but colleges can't?
You're not going to have some sort of mass reevaluation of the university system. If you want to correct the problem you'd need to create market niches.

Jenson71
11-19-2009, 06:22 PM
There are some niches, but those exist privately, for the most part. I'm talking about the majority of college students, which are public college students. And those niches, like the Great Books colleges, which are pretty intriguing to me, diminish in importance when the vast majority of colleges are running an entirely different ballgame. The religious colleges, as Catholic as they might be, aren't like the Middle Age religious universities. They exist in an evolving society, and the public university is a huge determination of that evolution. I hope that makes sense.

BY1401
11-20-2009, 07:25 AM
Not necessarily. All structural engineers did not get there by going to college. Engineers that do not have a bachelors degree can be a PE. You also do not have to have a degree to be licensed.

Where are you getting this information from?

Norman Einstein
11-20-2009, 07:59 AM
Where are you getting this information from?

I used to work with a structural engineer that did not have a degree. He was one of the best in the company. New hires be assigned to him, he was the mentor for them.

In the work world today many employers are looking for degreed engineers with 2 years experience. If you are out of college with an engineering degree you don't really have much of a chance of getting a job with that requirement.

I know a young man that graduated with a bachelors degree in accounting, he has not been able to land a position because he only has 1 1/2 years experience in the field, the prospective employers will not budge off the 2 year experience requirement.

BY1401
11-20-2009, 08:37 AM
I used to work with a structural engineer that did not have a degree. He was one of the best in the company. New hires be assigned to him, he was the mentor for them.

A licensed structural engineer that didn't have a degree?

I have never heard of such a thing. How does that happen?

Brock
11-20-2009, 08:49 AM
To say it's very rare would be a huge understatement. 99.999 percent of PE's went to an ABET school.