The next bubble to burst... higher education

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ok you're making some sense. Sounds to me like if you're correct, the education market will basically just correct itself. Some universities will have to downsize or close. This isn't the sort of problem that will send the entire economy into a tailspin like the housing bubble.

- wolf

No, but it will create a tiered system that's more distinct than today, especially in technical fields.

As I said in a prior post, my wife is a biology professor as a small private college and her pay is quite modest by academic standards. She'd make five times or more what she earns now having a PhD. in molecular genetics in industry, however she isn't strongly materialistic. She teaches because she believes it's important to pass what she knows on to others.

Her college as well as many others are in trouble because of the economy. Fewer students, less return on investments etc. Her school gets little money from the various governments, state and federal.

The costs of providing an education have skyrocketed more than the increase of tuition has. Schools are sucking up much of it eroding their reserves in order to stay competitive.

There are many things you cannot learn by watching a video. Labs are not optional because some things have to be taught "hands on". Well the cost of doing one lab has increased five times over two years. Lab fees have not. So overall tuition goes up. BTW, she hasn't has a raise in three years, and the 403b matching has gone away. After all that she makes less than what she now earns after inflation and she's become a full professor in the meantime. Why she does it is beyond me, but she feels it's her calling.

This is being played again and again in colleges and some universities all over the nation. I expect that most institutions will fold over the next twenty years.

What that will do is correct the problem of educational inflation requirements and I understand that's good, but at that time the remainder will have to start charging the true costs of education, and now you are looking at incredible tuition inflation as degrees which require higher education will be competing for fewer seats. Costs won't decrease because no amount of efficiency will decrease the price of a service below it's cost for long. Those who did will already be gone.

So you'll have some funding by an increasingly cash strapped government having to pay more and more. That won't go on forever. In the meantime the best remaining educators (of which there will be fewer and fewer) will go to the surviving prestigious schools and get a superior education which only the wealthy will be able to afford.

The "middle class" of education will evaporate, leaving a poorer society for it.

I'm not sure how it can be avoided, but I'm glad my children have the opportunity for a decent education before the chance evaporates.

 

[ShawnD1]

Unemployment of college graduates remains relatively low, even during economic recessions. Since the premise of many posting here is that college isn't "worth it," I find this to be an important factor to be aware of. The actual reasons for college graduates having less unemployment than other groups isn't really relevant to my main point, but you left out a major factor: college graduates have established networks for finding positions.

As someone who has 2 degrees, I'll tell you right now that most college people don't have any meaningful connections. When I graduated from chemistry, I only know of 2 people who found their job through connections. One girl's dad worked at a chemical plant and another girl had a friend of a friend at a university research lab. The rest of us had to get jobs the old fashioned way; we look at posted jobs and sent in applications. The biggest help we got from the school was a list of companies that typically hire chemists. What you would do is go to the website for each of those companies and see if they posted something. The school also had its own job board that companies could advertise in for free, but they would only advertise for that particular program - chemistry. 404: college networking not found.

Electrical Engineering wasn't much better. One guy got a job as an apprentice electrician (being an engineer allows you to jump directly into 3rd year apprentice) because his dad was a master electrician. Another guy got a job doing drafting for an engineering firm because his wife's dad works there. It seems like no 2 people got jobs at the same company because companies aren't hiring that many people. They just want 1 new guy and that's it. The rest of us went back to the job board as well as looking at websites for companies that are known to hire engineering grads.

I'll go a step further into this discussion. Many are saying that college doesn't provide you with the job skills necessary to enter a field. I'd just point out that NO ONE is hired into a job with the assumption that they have all the skills necessary to perform it. Even those with technical diplomas or in semi-professional careers are going to receive some type of on the job training.

The guys with technical diplomas already know 99% of the job. When I got a job in a drug lab, they didn't need to explain what a gas chromatograph is or how to use it. They didn't show me how to use the FTIR since they expect me to know that as well. They expected me to be familiar with practices of GMP, GLP, and ISO. The training consisted of touring around the building, being shown where to find all office supplies, chemical supplies, and stored samples.

Engineering is the same way. They expect that you know how to use AutoCAD and Microstation. They expect that you know how to do fault calculations. They expect that you know how to write good technical reports and use Microsoft Excel to work with numbers. All of your job training consists of minor details like what line weight the boarder is supposed to be or which brand of switchgear this company likes to use.

Things like a degree in womens' studies, psychology, and sociology are completely worthless. If you have that, you are no more qualified than any random high school graduate. You can use Microsoft Word? So can most high school students. You can use Outlook? Everyone can. What do you bring to this particular job? A strong understanding of the struggles of women against..asdf.asdlfjalsdflasdjfasd adfa alright so you went to university for 4 years and you learned absolutely nothing that applies to this job. Having a degree in basket weaving doesn't even look good. It looks like the person went to college just to avoid being drafted into a war or something. Maybe their parents threatened to kick them out if they didn't get a job or go to school. If they were passionate about working, they would have gone straight into working and skipped this whole 4 years of womens' studies phase.

If you scroll up a bit, you'll see that I posted stats from a survey done by my local university. Their conclusion was that the average pay for people who had an arts degree was only $27,500 yearly within 6 months of graduation. That translates to be about $14 per hour for 40 hours weekly. That's basically what a secretary gets paid. It should be pretty clear by now that having an arts degree does not help at all. That's also a pretty good indication that their "connections" at college didn't lead anywhere. You don't need connections to be a secretary.

My wife is a biology professor and she has to hear all the bitching "Why do we have to take this". Well because it's an education not a trade school. The ignorance of highly trained people is at time shocking, and the attitude of "well I don't have to know anything to be educated" (yep someone said that to her) is laughable.

You're right, students should be perfectly well rounded in numerous things that have absolutely nothing to do with their field of study. People getting degrees in sociology should be forced to learn advanced calculus, astronomy, bible studies, dentistry, analytical chemistry, nursing, tax laws, the mating habits of dung beetles, semiconductor electronics, and evolutionary biology. Instead of just being really good at sociology, they should be good at absolutely everything. College should take 20 years to complete and cost approximately 3 million dollars per person. If we extend student loans out long enough, they might be able to pay it back just before they die.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're right, students should be perfectly well rounded in numerous things that have absolutely nothing to do with their field of study. People getting degrees in sociology should be forced to learn advanced calculus, astronomy, bible studies, dentistry, analytical chemistry, nursing, tax laws, the mating habits of dung beetles, semiconductor electronics, and evolutionary biology. Instead of just being really good at sociology, they should be good at absolutely everything. College should take 20 years to complete and cost approximately 3 million dollars per person. If we extend student loans out long enough, they might be able to pay it back just before they die. ________

So let's go to the other extreme. Identify those who show potential early and isolate them. Let's teach them things they need to do and by about age 12 they should be able to do anything related to a specific task. Just bombard them 24/7. Keep them confined to cubicles and reward them when they do well and electroshock them when they make a mistake.

It's effective and much less costly.

Your world of drones is so appealing.

 

[BigDH01]

You're right, students should be perfectly well rounded in numerous things that have absolutely nothing to do with their field of study. People getting degrees in sociology should be forced to learn advanced calculus, astronomy, bible studies, dentistry, analytical chemistry, nursing, tax laws, the mating habits of dung beetles, semiconductor electronics, and evolutionary biology. Instead of just being really good at sociology, they should be good at absolutely everything. College should take 20 years to complete and cost approximately 3 million dollars per person. If we extend student loans out long enough, they might be able to pay it back just before they die.

Does that even closely resemble what Rider wrote? The "out-of-college" requirements at my school were hardly going to make me an expert in anything but it did spark interests that I pursued on my own later.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Anyway, ignoring those proselytizing for ignorance, I've had a great deal of education, formal and informal, which is completely unrelated to what I do to earn a living and consequently when I go outdoors or read a book I have a far larger context of the world around me. I have a richer life than those who do not. The hyperbole of the Preacher of Little is Better aside, one does not need to be exposed to other ideas and things to do a job, however a person ought not to be the contents of their wallet or bank account. There are rewards in life other than money, but some don't see that.

The thralls are blind deaf and dumb and don't even know it. I find them irritating, but more than that I do pity them more than anything else. Shallowness is their meat and potatoes.

 

[ShawnD1]

So let's go to the other extreme. Identify those who show potential early and isolate them. Let's teach them things they need to do and by about age 12 they should be able to do anything related to a specific task. Just bombard them 24/7. Keep them confined to cubicles and reward them when they do well and electroshock them when they make a mistake.

It's effective and much less costly.

Your world of drones is so appealing.

It totally is. Lots of master electricians never even finished high school. They go to trade school for something like 2 months per year for 4 years and that's how they become masters. They make awesome money and it's fairly good work. Look at how happy this man is when fucking with something

Then there's the opposite. People go to a 4 year university and they learn so much useless bullshit that it blanks their mind similar to that machine in that episode of Star Trek called Dagger of the Mind. This man pictured below has a 4 year bachelor degree from Yale; his major was history. His mind is filled with so much garbage that it's the only thing that comes out of his mouth when he speaks:

Does [comment about 20 year university] even closely resemble what Rider wrote?

Yes it does. He said his wife's biology students bitch about needing to learn useless crap like Roman history (my friend actually did need to take this to get his chemistry degree). Rider defended his wife's position by agreeing that students should be forced to drag 2 years worth of engineering or science content into 4 years that is padded with useless garbage and increases the cost of university by 100%. I agreed with him even more by stating it should be dragged out to 20 years just to make sure they really are well rounded. Why restrict your education to just Roman history. We should learn the history of every civilization ever! That's the only way to be well rounded. It's not like students could ever learn this on their own simply because they want to learn it. Wikipedia? Never heard of it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It totally is. Lots of master electricians never even finished high school. They go to trade school for something like 2 months per year for 4 years and that's how they become masters. They make awesome money and it's fairly good work. Look at how happy this man is when fucking with something

Then there's the opposite. People go to a 4 year university and they learn so much useless bullshit that it blanks their mind similar to that machine in that episode of Star Trek called Dagger of the Mind. This man pictured below has a 4 year bachelor degree from Yale; his major was history. His mind is filled with so much garbage that it's the only thing that comes out of his mouth when he speaks:

Yes it does. He said his wife's biology students bitch about needing to learn useless crap like Roman history (my friend actually did need to take this to get his chemistry degree). Rider defended his wife's position by agreeing that students should be forced to drag 2 years worth of engineering or science content into 4 years that is padded with useless garbage and increases the cost of university by 100%. I agreed with him even more by stating it should be dragged out to 20 years just to make sure they really are well rounded. Why restrict your education to just Roman history. We should learn the history of every civilization ever! That's the only way to be well rounded. It's not like students could ever learn this on their own simply because they want to learn it. Wikipedia? Never heard of it.

I'm sorry, that's not allowed. You have to keep people captive at birth if you want to use hyperbole, but I also forgot that you are an expert on education via Wiki.

In the real world in the mean time, many people have their first exposure to something they hadn't even known existed in college. They would exercise their conformational bias like you do to remain ignorant at all possible costs. Being exposed to more than they "need" sometimes (often in fact) gives them a perspective and an opportunity to take another vocational course than they might have otherwise. Oh that never happens, I forgot. Everyone who plans to go to medical school or become an engineer does just that. Right.

BTW, the students that were complaining weren't science majors but people like sociologists and the like who will one day work with people who have mental disorders. Of course why should they be required to know anything about that which affects the people they interact with? That's their problem.

I understand you wish to be the positive voice for ignorance, and you should know you are doing a fine job in leading by example.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, almost forgot. While you are espousing stupidity, no one ever said that college as it exists is for everyone. One of the problems we have in education is the lack of good vocational programs. No one has said that the electrician had to go to college, but if he did he shouldn't demand an "electrician" degree and an exemption from all other learning.

In your second example you confuse education for wisdom. There are illiterate fools and educated ones. Colleges are charged with providing learning, but no one can guarantee an understanding.

Now you can continue for your quest to make everyone little gray people secure in the knowledge that no one will ever teach you a thing.

 

[ShawnD1]

In the real world in the mean time, many people have their first exposure to something they hadn't even known existed in college.

Even after going through 2 different university programs, I've never once seen this. Every single person who left chemistry was booted out because they failed. Every person who left engineering was kicked out because they failed.

What kind of degree do you have? Did any of your class mates jump programs like that?

BTW, the students that were complaining weren't science majors but people like sociologists and the like who will one day work with people who have mental disorders. Of course why should they be required to know anything about that which affects the people they interact with? That's their problem.

You're not getting it. Even highly trained neurologists and psychiatrists don't understand mental illnesses. This is why we have such a hard time treating mental illness. Look at something as simple as depression. There are a million things that can cause depression. Low blood sugar, low iron, low red blood cell count, low serotonin, low dopamine, low thyroid activity, low adrenal activity, etc. Then on top of that there are questions of what causes the low blood sugar, what causes low thyroid, etc. If even medical doctors can't get it right on the first 3 or 4 tries, why would you expect sociology majors to understand this?

Diagnosing and treating neurological disorders is not what a sociologist does, so you're being unreasonable when you expect them to know this. What you're arguing is on the same level as saying all secretaries should be able to write code in assembly for an x86 processor simply because they work with those processors on a daily basis when they use Excel. No, you don't need that level of detail.
You don't need to know the exact workings of the brain to understand that someone has autism and what that looks like and how it can be treated with therapy or how those people interact with a community.

I understand you wish to be the positive voice for ignorance, and you should know you are doing a fine job in leading by example.

2 degrees in scientific fields = ignorant? Ok then I guess I'm ignorant.

 

[ShawnD1]

I could flip this around and say that Rider is arguing in favor of ignorance. Instead of wanting students to take 4 years of electrical engineering, you are arguing that they should take 2 years of engineering and 2 years of bullshit that has nothing to do with engineering. If they are forced to be there for 4 years, they should actually learn their discipline for all 4 years. Cut out the bullshit about Roman and Greek history. Engineers should take a class about engineering history. Forget interpretive literature and poetry. Let's try interpretive schematics - we give you the schematic and you tell us what it does.


I could also rant about all the useless bullshit they made us take in grade school as well. Why are people forced to take physical education? Forget learning things like sexual education or understanding how dish soap works, let's throw a ball around! Is this the well-rounded goal we're throwing for? Instead of learning science and math, we learn to throw things?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Even after going through 2 different university programs, I've never once seen this.

I have and so has my wife. English majors decide to go into law. Chemistry students into education. Sometimes it's because they are failing and sometimes because they learned something they didn't know.

What kind of degree do you have?

Undergrad in pharmacy, doctorate in biology from the University of Pennsylvania. I've picked up the odds and ends courses like physics, physical chemistry and the like. The vast majority of my education was scientific in nature, but not all related to what I did or do.

You're not getting it. Even highly trained neurologists and psychiatrists don't understand mental illnesses. This is why we have such a hard time treating mental illness. Look at something as simple as depression. There are a million things that can cause depression. Low blood sugar, low iron, low red blood cell count, low serotonin, low dopamine, low thyroid activity, low adrenal activity, etc. Then on top of that there are questions of what causes the low blood sugar, what causes low thyroid, etc. If even medical doctors can't get it right on the first 3 or 4 tries, why would you expect sociology majors to understand this?

No one expects everyone to have a complete understanding of everything, but when one reads a professional journal it IS expected that at least there is some familiarity with the terminology besides what a quick peek at Wiki says.

Some context, some basic understanding of what goes on IS necessary. That's why it's part of the degree. Being anything isn't an algorithmic process. It involves a certain degree of insight and by knowing something about what is going on outside a job description.

What you seem to insist on is that learning things outside of the immediate application to a profession or trade is valueless. I disagree.

Not one person but you has come up with "20 years and three million dollars" as even desirable to anyone. That is a poor use of hyperbolic language at best. What you do show is that you evidently believe the sole function of education is vocation. You are your job, and anything that requires you to beyond that narrow emphasis is a waste.

2 degrees in scientific fields = ignorant? Ok then I guess I'm ignorant.

Yes, I do consider you ignorant, because you've decided that your trade should interfere with your education. If you had won a dozen Nobel Prizes and had the same attitude I'd take the same position.

I expect you'll come up with some nonsense about my position endorsing ignorance because it takes away from "job learning time". Well, again education ISN'T just about learning a job. Once you progress beyond the undergrad level you have the chance to devote your entire time to a very focused specialty. Spending 6o to 8o hours a week doing grad research doesn't give much time for anything else.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I could flip this around and say that Rider is arguing in favor of ignorance.

Oh man, I called this better than I knew.

 

[woolfe9999]

No, but it will create a tiered system that's more distinct than today, especially in technical fields.

As I said in a prior post, my wife is a biology professor as a small private college and her pay is quite modest by academic standards. She'd make five times or more what she earns now having a PhD. in molecular genetics in industry, however she isn't strongly materialistic. She teaches because she believes it's important to pass what she knows on to others.

Her college as well as many others are in trouble because of the economy. Fewer students, less return on investments etc. Her school gets little money from the various governments, state and federal.

The costs of providing an education have skyrocketed more than the increase of tuition has. Schools are sucking up much of it eroding their reserves in order to stay competitive.

There are many things you cannot learn by watching a video. Labs are not optional because some things have to be taught "hands on". Well the cost of doing one lab has increased five times over two years. Lab fees have not. So overall tuition goes up. BTW, she hasn't has a raise in three years, and the 403b matching has gone away. After all that she makes less than what she now earns after inflation and she's become a full professor in the meantime. Why she does it is beyond me, but she feels it's her calling.

This is being played again and again in colleges and some universities all over the nation. I expect that most institutions will fold over the next twenty years.

What that will do is correct the problem of educational inflation requirements and I understand that's good, but at that time the remainder will have to start charging the true costs of education, and now you are looking at incredible tuition inflation as degrees which require higher education will be competing for fewer seats. Costs won't decrease because no amount of efficiency will decrease the price of a service below it's cost for long. Those who did will already be gone.

So you'll have some funding by an increasingly cash strapped government having to pay more and more. That won't go on forever. In the meantime the best remaining educators (of which there will be fewer and fewer) will go to the surviving prestigious schools and get a superior education which only the wealthy will be able to afford.

The "middle class" of education will evaporate, leaving a poorer society for it.

I'm not sure how it can be avoided, but I'm glad my children have the opportunity for a decent education before the chance evaporates.

Interesting. Your wife's experience runs against the grain of the "education bubble" theory that is being proferred in this thread. Supposedly, there is an increase in the number of students due to government guarenteed loans, and the universities are getting fat and rich off this, paying their professors ungodly amounts of money, while raising tuition through the roof. And this bubble will then crash as state funds dry up. You are instead painting a picture of declining enrollments, where colleges aren't charging even the true cost of education, and professors are grossly underpaid compared to jobs they could do outside of education.

I do agree with your analysis of where higher education is heading. We just had a 30% bump in our daughter's tuition at UCSD due to state budget cuts. And the maddening thing is she is taking a semester interning in D.C., for which we are of course also paying all the expenses. So she is taking no classes, using virtually no school resources, and yet we are still paying full tuition, which is 30% higher than last year. Soon enough, the public schools here will have tuition nearing that of private schools. Gone is relatively inexpensive public higher education, due of course to recessions and state mismanagement of funds.

- wolf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Interesting. Your wife's experience runs against the grain of the "education bubble" theory that is being proferred in this thread. Supposedly, there is an increase in the number of students due to government guarenteed loans, and the universities are getting fat and rich of this, paying their professors ungodly amounts of money, while raising tuition through the roof. And this bubble will then crash as state funds dry up. You are instead painting a picture where colleges aren't charging even the true cost of education, and professors are grossly underpaid compared with jobs they could do outside of education.

A great deal depends on location and institutional size. I don't have the figures handy, but I believe you'll find that the number of small colleges closing are greater than those opening. Even Dartmouth and other Ivy League colleges are having financial woes. Again that's largely do to the economy, but if the assumption is that colleges are floating in funds, they'd never close. That's not the case.

Our pet peeve is that administrative compensation continues to grow while the cry for austerity goes out. That's a sore spot, but a small part of an operating budget.

As technology marches on, so does the need to keep current. In sciences (and again I know most about biology) that means a continuing upgrading of facilities and labs. That is $$$$$$$$$$.

Colleges which are largely state supported DO have a lot of cash going into them and the clash is always between educators, administrators and government. The former have to deal with policies of administrators who are often disconnected with the needs of the educational community, which in turn have their mandates driven by those who don't understand what education really is. To me it looks a lot like health care driven by politicians, who have policies and mandates, but don't have the least interest in improving patient outcomes, as if the person in need is an afterthought.

 

[nonlnear]

Interesting. Your wife's experience runs against the grain of the "education bubble" theory that is being proferred in this thread. Supposedly, there is an increase in the number of students due to government guarenteed loans, and the universities are getting fat and rich off this, paying their professors ungodly amounts of money, while raising tuition through the roof. And this bubble will then crash as state funds dry up. You are instead painting a picture of declining enrollments, where colleges aren't charging even the true cost of education, and professors are grossly underpaid compared to jobs they could do outside of education.

Who said anything about the rank and file faculty being the beneficiaries of the "bubble"? (which I'll grant you is an annoyingly poor term for it) The beneficiaries, if anything, are the administrators who now make up a much larger portion of payroll than they did 40 years ago, and the business friends of the board members who in many states enjoy the benefits of rather opaque bidding processes.

The rank and file faculty are suffering a massive downgrade in their financial status due to a variety of reasons, some of which are related to the overfunding of higher education, and some which are related to other political realities. This is a terrible time to be looking for a tenure track position, which is why I didn't bother after finishing a postdoc. I had a hell of a lot of fun while I was in the game, but doubling down on an academic career right at a point in time when tenure is dying and real wages are declining doesn't sound like a winning bet to me when I've got better options. It does sound pretty good to millions of Ph.D.s in Asia who would enjoy an opportunity to have a lwn, live within an hour's drive of a state park, and not fear for their lives when they write an article vaguely critical of their government though, so there won't be a short supplly of faculty willing to teach for peanuts (in American terms).

 

[woolfe9999]

Who said anything about the rank and file faculty being the beneficiaries of the "bubble"?

Sorry, I was still discussing the OP, who said:

I think a lot of schools have gotten fat off government money.... inflating prices and creating this bubble. My alma mater has a now recreation center that rivals any in the nation. The professors make very handsome salaries... even the ones without tenure.

You know, all those intellectuals and their high falutin larning that is irrelevant and unncessary, and getting fat and rich in the process.

I wasn't necessarily responding to any of your comments in particular.

- wolf

 

[daishi5]

Interesting. Your wife's experience runs against the grain of the "education bubble" theory that is being proferred in this thread. Supposedly, there is an increase in the number of students due to government guarenteed loans, and the universities are getting fat and rich off this, paying their professors ungodly amounts of money, while raising tuition through the roof. And this bubble will then crash as state funds dry up. You are instead painting a picture of declining enrollments, where colleges aren't charging even the true cost of education, and professors are grossly underpaid compared to jobs they could do outside of education.

I do agree with your analysis of where higher education is heading. We just had a 30% bump in our daughter's tuition at UCSD due to state budget cuts. And the maddening thing is she is taking a semester interning in D.C., for which we are of course also paying all the expenses. So she is taking no classes, using virtually no school resources, and yet we are still paying full tuition, which is 30% higher than last year. Soon enough, the public schools here will have tuition nearing that of private schools. Gone is relatively inexpensive public higher education, due of course to recessions and state mismanagement of funds.

- wolf

It sounds like his description is the start of a bubble coming to an end. If there really is a bubble, the current economic situation would be a good catalyst to bring it down. It may or may not "burst" like the real estate market, but if it is a bubble, when it ends it will hurt a bit. I remember reading somewhere that the cost of college is not going up because of classes, but facility costs, and most of that to nice dorms. From purely anecdotal evidence, I see a lot of support for that at the Universities in the area. Our local community college even built a set of dorms recently.

And on a side note to the argument between ShawnD and Hayabusa. I think we need more vocational schools that are recognized and respected. Things like engineering need a more vocational school approach. The classic university experience was supposed to create a well rounded graduate with an understanding of many things. Things like engineering, and many sciences would benefit from a more focused education on their field. College is too much of a one size fits all strategy. A woman in her 30's that is trying to learn a skillset to advance her life does not really need her time spent on the history of women's rights. An 18 year old student just entering the college system, who has no idea what he or she wants out of life would receive a lot more benefit from a broad education that they can build on once they find a course in their life.

 

[nonlnear]

Sorry, I was still discussing the OP, who said:



You know, all those intellectuals and their high falutin larning that is irrelevant and unncessary, and getting fat and rich in the process.

I wasn't necessarily responding to any of your comments in particular.

I kind of figured. I just wanted to insert a post here and there to make it clear (more for the benefit of some of the other posters) that there is a perspective which is largely similar to the OP, but omits the stupid bits.

 

[ShawnD1]

I expect you'll come up with some nonsense about my position endorsing ignorance because it takes away from "job learning time". Well, again education ISN'T just about learning a job.

I'll assume for a second that you are correct and university should not just be used for specialized training. Why do we pad technical programs with the amount of art that they currently have? Instead of a 4 year engineering program where 2 of the years are actual engineering, why not make a program where only 1 of the years is engineering? The other 3 years can be spent on "education" and we can have an entire army of engineers who have no clue what they are doing.

As you've said, university is not about knowing how to design bridges that don't fall apart or how to give someone the correct dosage of anesthetic. I would feel much better knowing that my doctor had only 3 or 4 classes related to medicine and the rest were related to sociology, womens' studies, and various other classes that expand their education. The rest of it can be done through on the job training. After 3 or 4 people die on the operating table due to too much anesthetic, I'm sure the doctor will figure this whole thing out on his own.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As you've said, university is not about knowing how to design bridges that don't fall apart or how to give someone the correct dosage of anesthetic.

For your own sake, you ought to quit now.

Apparently among the educational opportunities you wish to discard is the art of debate, so I'll help you out with your desire to look bad.

Look at everything I've typed and pull out a quote in context where I said that people ought not to learn about the careers they wish to pursue. What I do say is that vocation alone does not constitute a good education. That you have no understanding of the term is not our fault.

You look at opportunity as punishment. To turn around a movie quote-

"You are your job. You're how much money you have in the bank. You're the car you drive. You're the contents of your wallet. You're your fucking khakis."

What you really are is "the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."

Truth be told I'm not as much of an education snob as you might think. I judge people more on their understanding than their degrees. I enjoy talking to the guy who sweeps the floor, the man who runs a research department and many people in between. There are two sorts, those who "get it" and those who do not. You place value in being the latter and it shows, and rather painfully I might add.

Now if you want to retreat into mischaracterizations and absurd hyperbole as tool of discussion, be my guest. The adults will continue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And on a side note to the argument between ShawnD and Hayabusa. I think we need more vocational schools that are recognized and respected. Things like engineering need a more vocational school approach. The classic university experience was supposed to create a well rounded graduate with an understanding of many things. Things like engineering, and many sciences would benefit from a more focused education on their field. College is too much of a one size fits all strategy. A woman in her 30's that is trying to learn a skillset to advance her life does not really need her time spent on the history of women's rights. An 18 year old student just entering the college system, who has no idea what he or she wants out of life would receive a lot more benefit from a broad education that they can build on once they find a course in their life.

Certainly the more technical fields need to have a greater focus than many others. The objection by some is that anything outside of what is required to earn a living is a waste. I think the debating skills of some show that is not desirable.

Nevertheless, education must adapt to needs and it presents some difficulties. As science and technology progresses, there is an increasing need for specialization sub-specializations. Perversely perhaps, that's why I believe that some exposure to unrelated subjects (and what that is and how much is up for genuine intelligent debate) is necessary. In spite of what some would have us believe we as people require a broader understanding of the world to function as anything other than ants performing a task. If a person is to fit into a healthy society then the greater understanding of what is around him is beneficial.

Now having said this, colleges and universities do recognize that things are not equal or static. That's why we have adult learning programs which do emphasize more nuts and bolts subjects.

It's rather interesting to see the older student who decides to pursue a more traditional course of study. 30 and 40-somethings aren't uncommon where my wife teaches and strangely enough they welcome educational diversity while one might think the reverse since it cuts down on time spent in a new field. They've generally come to recognize the value of learning and look upon those who are younger and cry about things outside their respective fields as spoiled brats.

 

[ShawnD1]

Look at everything I've typed and pull out a quote in context where I said that people ought not to learn about the careers they wish to pursue. What I do say is that vocation alone does not constitute a good education.

People are not there for your version of what good education is. People are there because they were told that university will give them the skills required to get a good job. They go there to become teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. They specifically went there for vocational training. People don't want to be forced into taking classes that do not further their vocational training.

Think of it like this. How much do people remember in subjects they were forced to take and didn't care about? I'll even answer it for you - they remember nothing. That drama friend I mentioned earlier who took meteorology to get the required science credits for her drama degree. She knew absolutely nothing about meteorology simply because she didn't care. She was forced to take science because it's the only way to get her degree. She crammed for the test, passed the test, and immediately forgot everything. That did not expand her education at all. You can't force people to learn things like that. It might even be you who said this: you get out what you put in. If you only go to that specific class to pass a test and be done with it, then you probably won't learn anything from that class.

This applies to science major who are forced into psychology classes or art classes. They cram for the test the night before, pass it, then never think about it again. You might think that forcing them to take that class made them more educated, but it didn't. They won't remember any of it.


You said you support vocational training, and that's great. I support it too. You also said a broad variety of classes will make you more educated. I agree with that as well. What we disagree on is whether or not people should be forced into taking a broad variety of classes. I say no they shouldn't. If you just want to be an engineer, that's great. If you want to learn about poetry as well, that's great too, but poetry should not be forced on all of the other engineers because we know damn well that they won't retain any of it and will put in the bare minimum effort.

You look at opportunity as punishment.

What you and your wife are advocating is punishment. In a situation where people are paying upward of $30,000 per year, you're saying that it's ok to force them into attending 4 years instead of just 2 or 3 to accomplish the same desired level of vocational training. I know you think it's in their best interest and it will make them smarter, but we know it won't. It just feels really wrong to force people to pay an extra $30,000 to take classes they don't want to take and will not make them more proficient at their chosen profession. If they want to stay another year and learn all of that, then that's great, but don't force every single student to pay this.

 

[Carmen813]

Things like a degree in womens' studies, psychology, and sociology are completely worthless. If you have that, you are no more qualified than any random high school graduate. You can use Microsoft Word? So can most high school students. You can use Outlook? Everyone can. What do you bring to this particular job? A strong understanding of the struggles of women against..asdf.asdlfjalsdflasdjfasd adfa alright so you went to university for 4 years and you learned absolutely nothing that applies to this job. Having a degree in basket weaving doesn't even look good. It looks like the person went to college just to avoid being drafted into a war or something. Maybe their parents threatened to kick them out if they didn't get a job or go to school. If they were passionate about working, they would have gone straight into working and skipped this whole 4 years of womens' studies phase.

Ah yes, the social sciences are worthless argument. Always fun to deal with. I have a degree in Psychology, which I switched into after studying Electrical Engineering for 3-4 years. If you want the details as to why, search through my old posts.

As a direct result of this "worthless" degree, I met numerous professors who were very supportive and taught me a great deal. I was able to learn about human development, personality, psychological research, neurobiology, cognition, and counseling. One asked me to serve as her TA for a semester while I was a senior. I asked for and received letters of recommendation from several professors. After graduation I used these letters to apply for a Master's Program in Mental Health Counseling and received a full scholarship (~$60,000) to a private university, which is unheard of at the Master's level.

I also met a professor at my undergraduate college who directly linked me with my first job after graduating, where I worked as a research assistant for an organization that is part of the University of Rochester over a summer. Sure, the pay was shitty, minimum wage, but it gave me valuable first hand skills and experience working with inner city families. It's worth noting that I never took this professor in a course and sought him out.That led directly into another position as an after school tutor, which paid around $18.50 an hour. I met a whole slew of people through this position who are administrators at my university. This in turn led to my current position, where I work with engineering students as a counselor. I've gone full circle.

Oh and I was called to interview for an engineering position the other day, even though I have no interest in that field, didn't graduate in it, and haven't worked in it in five years.

Those "bullshit" classes are what allowed me to discover what I actually wanted to do, and I'm much happier for it. "Bullshit" courses teach students how to consider problems from different angles outside of what they are comfortable or used to. They also teach skills that are essential in business, such as how to interact with customers and other people in the organization. Even as an engineering intern I saw just how counter-productive poor social skills were to my firms ability to fulfill customer requirements.

College rewards those who invest themselves in it and maximize their opportunities. You need to be proactive, it's unrealistic to sit back and expect a professor to hand you a letter of recommendation or hook you up with a job interview. If all you did was look on a job board for postings, then I am not surprised that you struggled to find a position. The most consistent factor for finding a position, across all professions, is human interaction. Of course they teach you this if you take advantage of the free career services offered by most universities, or if you happen to take a course in business psychology or sociology.

As for the earnings of different majors, not everyone believes that the purpose of college is to earn as much money as humanly possible. Perhaps that is what you personally use to judge the value of education, but it is not one that everyone shares. In my experience, it's not something that most students in college use to judge the value of their education. I'll be lucky as a Licensed Mental Health Counselor to earn $50,000 a year after nearly 10 years of education (plus supervision), but I will be much happier than I would have been shoved into a cubicle for the next 30 years.

 

[woolfe9999]

Those "bullshit" courses teach students how to consider problems from different angles outside of what they are comfortable or used to. They also teach skills that are essential in business, such as how to interact with customers and other people in the organization. Even as an engineering intern I saw just how counter-productive poor social skills were to my firms ability to fulfill customer requirements.

Good points. I will add another: those "bullshit" courses teach people to take a broader view of society, to question received wisdom and given assumptions, and to think critically. That is, IF the class is well taught and IF the students are receptive. We need more of that frankly, in these United States.

- wolf

 

[BoberFett]

Good points. I will add another: those "bullshit" courses teach people to take a broader view of society, to question received wisdom and given assumptions, and to think critically. That is, IF the class is well taught and IF the students are receptive. We need more of that frankly, in these United States.

- wolf

Why isn't that happening in high school? Maybe we should fix that first.