The Fall and Rise of higher ed or "don't let them know"?

[CK_John]

The news in March that Sweet Briar would shut down stunned
not only the college, but many others in higher education. Unlike most colleges that close, Sweet Briar still had more than $80 million in its endowment, name recognition, a beautiful campus and a sound academic reputation. But trustees cited a rising discount rate (the percentage covered by institutional aid or discounts off sticker price that families pay), a declining yield (the percentage of admitted applicants who enroll) and the difficulty of recruiting applicants to a rural women's liberal arts college.

More...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/22/deal-will-save-sweet-briar-college

But it get a 1yr stay

WASHINGTON — A circuit court judge in Virginia on Monday approved a settlement that will allow Sweet Briar College to remain open for at least another academic year, as an alumnae group called on students and faculty to return to the financially troubled women’s college in rural Virginia.

The settlement, brokered over the weekend by Attorney General Mark Herring of Virginia, will bring new leadership to the college and requires the alumnae group, Saving Sweet Briar Inc., to donate $12 million to keep it open.

More...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/us/virginia-judge-approves-deal-to-keep-sweet-briar-college-open.html?_r=0

IMO, with 50% of college grads unemployed or underemployed the need for higher ed is just not needed. I doubt that all of the Ivy Universities will be around in 5yrs.

So which of the candidates will tackle this problem? Beyond trying to forgive student loans , nothing.....

[KamaAina]

1. "I doubt that all of the Ivy Universities will be around in 5yrs."

I would very much like a piece of that action. Mine has been around since 1701.

Smaller, lesser-known colleges with smaller endowments are the ones at risk.

[SheilaT]

2. Without knowing anything at all about the school, other than what I read in the article.

I'd say that being a small rural school is the core of the problem.

I happen to thank that small private colleges are often a better choice for a student that the huge public universities, but the realities of life, especially the financial realities, mean that such schools are often fighting a losing battle.

It's private, so it can't really expect public money. It's a woman's school, and women don't earn as much money in the long run as men, which is a core reason why they don't contribute as much money to their alma maters as men do.

What is really criminal, in my opinion, is a school abruptly closing down, leaving the classes that haven't graduated yet totally in the lurch.

[CK_John]

3. IMO, productivity is the real problem, technology is just not producing enough jobs.

Less jobs, means less higher ed needed.

[Igel]

4. For crying out loud ...

At least get the stats right.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm . If you're a college grad (of any kind) in 5/15 your population cohort had an unemployment rate of 2.7%. No college? At least double that.

Here are the generalizations:

If you're over 25, you're probably in a job that uses sufficient of your skills and almost certainly have a job.

If you're a recent grad, you're much less likely than the general population to be unemployed. STEM grads are less unemployed than others with a bachelors.

If you're a recent grad, you're about as likely as you'd have been in the early '90s to not be employed in a job that uses your skills. That's the kind of "underemployment" that is really at issue--not "I'm only working 20 hours a week". Most entry-level jobs don't require liberal arts skills, and STEM grads tend to get hired in their fields. (They have a low unemployment/underemployment rate, on average.) It can take a few years to figure out how to apply your degree, to find the right job, or to move up from junior pencil-pusher 3rd class to something that actually uses your skills.

Unlike 10 years ago, if you have a mismatched job, you're more likely to be low paid.

However, this kind of "underemployment" as social mayhem misses an important point: You may not have a job that uses your skills to the full but you're still much more likely to have a job.

If a candidate is going to tackle that particular problem--job mismatch as "underemployment"--there'll be extensive screaming everywhere, because the problem is that a lot of degrees aren't needed for what they appear to be. Psych majors =/= psychologists. Poli sci majors don't all get jobs as politicians. English majors don't all become best selling writers or editors. Want to clear up the difference in un- and underemployment between liberal arts and STEM majors? Sharply curtail the number of students studying liberal arts--just get rid of "unnecessary" departments, limit the number of students permitted. Seriously--people would object to that? Oh. Yes. Yes, they would. (BTW, a number of those grads do other things: They get cross-certified, they get professional degrees or additional certifications. That 3-year lag is is pretty much a fixture in the US economy. It hasn't increased from a 1- or 2-year lag, and it hasn't much decreased from a 4- or 5-year lag. It's just that the problem is more pronounced now than under the horrible, horrible Bush II years because of the wage gap between STEM/non-STEm mismatched-job "underemployment".)

Sweet Briar is pretty much doomed, but not because post-secondary education is a waste of time. Small schools don't have the range of offerings needed (I went to a small school out of high school, and when I wanted to change majors I needed to change schools). Rural schools don't appeal to a more urban-oriented youth. The only exceptions are truly exceptionally ranked schools or those with exceptional and fairly limited programs.