Are Too Many Students Going to College?

[Nikki Stone1]

This is a really interesting forum which really addresses how useful college is. The website requires an expensive membership, so I am going to print everything I can from it.

FORUM PARTICIPANTS

Sandy Baum, professor emerita of economics at Skidmore College and senior policy analyst for the College Board

Bryan Caplan, associate professor of economics at George Mason University

W. Norton Grubb, professor of policy, organization, measurement, and evaluation at the University of California at Berkeley's Graduate School of Education

Charles Murray, political scientist and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

Marty Nemko, career counselor based in Oakland, Calif.

Richard K. Vedder, director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity and professor of economics at Ohio University

Marcus A. Winters, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute

Alison Wolf, professor of public-sector management at King's College London

Daniel Yankelovich, founder and chairman of Viewpoint Learning Inc., which develops dialogues to resolve public-policy issues; Public Agenda, a nonprofit policy-research organization; and DYG Inc., a market- and social-research firm


http://chronicle.com/article/Are-Too-Many-Students-Going-to/49039/

With student debt rising and more of those enrolled failing to graduate in four years, there is a growing sentiment that college may not be the best option for all students. At the same time, President Obama has called on every American to receive at least one year of higher education or vocational training. Behind the rhetoric lies disagreement over a series of issues: which students are most likely to succeed in college; what kind of college they should attend; whether the individual or society benefits more from postsecondary education; and whether college is worth the high cost and likely long-term debt. The Chronicle Review asked higher-education experts to weigh in.

Who should and shouldn't go to college?

Alison Wolf: Anyone who meets the entry criteria and is willing to pay the fees should be able to go. In one sense, that just passes the buck—politicians then have to decide how much subsidy they are willing to provide. But it shouldn't be up to them to decide how many people go, what they study, and why.

Charles Murray: It has been empirically demonstrated that doing well (B average or better) in a traditional college major in the arts and sciences requires levels of linguistic and logical/mathematical ability that only 10 to 15 percent of the nation's youth possess. That doesn't mean that only 10 to 15 percent should get more than a high-school education. It does mean that the four-year residential program leading to a B.A. is the wrong model for a large majority of young people.

Marty Nemko: All high-school students should receive a cost-benefit analysis of the various options suitable to their situations: four-year college, two-year degree program, short-term career-prep program, apprenticeship program, on-the-job training, self-employment, the military. Students with weak academic records should be informed that, of freshmen at "four year" colleges who graduated in the bottom 40 percent of their high-school class, two-thirds won't graduate even if given eight and a half years. And that even if such students defy the odds, they will likely graduate with a low GPA and a major in low demand by employers. A college should not admit a student it believes would more wisely attend another institution or pursue a noncollege postsecondary option. Students' lives are at stake, not just enrollment targets.

Sandy Baum: Everyone should have the opportunity to continue his or her education after high school without finances' creating an insurmountable barrier. For individuals whose goal is a four-year degree, beginning at a four-year college is generally the most promising option. For others, different types of institutions may be more appropriate.

Daniel Yankelovich: In today's society and economy, virtually everyone who has the motivation and stamina should acquire some form of postsecondary education. That is a practical reality of today's economy.

Marcus A. Winters: In general, people benefit from education and should acquire as much as they can. Though there are many good reasons to do so, the best economic research suggests that the wage return for a year of college course work is more than enough to justify pursuing at least some higher education. That not all students have the skills necessary to keep up with college course work says more about the effectiveness of our K-12 education than about the cognitive ability of American students.

Richard K. Vedder: A large subset of our population should not go to college, or at least not at public expense. The number of new jobs requiring a college degree is now less than the number of young adults graduating from universities, so more and more graduates are filling jobs for which they are academically overqualified.

W. Norton Grubb: Students should go to college if they understand (and want) the economic or occupational benefits of college, as long as they understand the length of time and difficulty of attaining a degree. They should also be college-ready, and they should be enthusiastic about the intellectual roles of college—the chance to take general-education courses, the intellectual and cultural life of most colleges, the opportunities to develop broad and curious intellects. Otherwise college is likely to be narrow and utilitarian.

Bryan Caplan: There are two ways to read this question. One is: "Who gets a good financial and/or personal return from college?" My answer: people in the top 25 percent of academic ability who also have the work ethic to actually finish college. The other way to read this is: "For whom is college attendance socially beneficial?" My answer: no more than 5 percent of high-school graduates, because college is mostly what economists call a "signaling game." Most college courses teach few useful job skills; their main function is to signal to employers that students are smart, hard-working, and conformist. The upshot: Going to college is a lot like standing up at a concert to see better. Selfishly speaking, it works, but from a social point of view, we shouldn't encourage it.


How much does increasing college-going rates matter to our economy and society?

Caplan: College attendance, in my view, is usually a drain on our economy and society. Encouraging talented people to spend many years in wasteful status contests deprives the economy of millions of man-years of output. If this were really an "investment," of course, it might be worth it. But I see little connection between the skills that students acquire in college and the skills they'll need later in life.

Nemko: Increasing college-going rates may actually hurt our economy. We now send 70 percent of high-school graduates to college, up from 40 percent in 1970. At the same time, employers are accelerating their offshoring, part-timing, and temping of as many white-collar jobs as possible. That results in ever more unemployed and underemployed B.A.'s. Meanwhile, there's a shortage of tradespeople to take the Obama infrastructure-rebuilding jobs. And you and I have a hard time getting a reliable plumber even if we're willing to pay $80 an hour—more than many professors make.

Vedder: While it is true that areas with high proportions of college graduates tend to have higher incomes and even higher rates of economic growth than other areas, it does not necessarily follow that mindlessly increasing college enrollments enhances our economic well-being. My own research shows that there generally is a negative relationship between state support for higher education and economic growth. Sending marginal students to four-year degree programs, only to drop out, is a waste of human and financial resources, and lowers the quality of life for those involved.

Yankelovich: It is of critical importance to both. In the emerging global economy, our greatest competitive vulnerability is our nation's failure to close the higher-education credentials gap between middle-income and lower-income families.

Winters: Increasing college-attendance rates in the United States is essential to reducing income inequality and maintaining our stature as a world economic leader. Our economic dominance in the second half of the 20th century was directly related to our educational dominance. The United States was the first nation to provide basic education to all people regardless of their income. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the educated American worker was far more productive than his illiterate overseas cousin. That advantage made our nation rich. However, while other nations eventually caught on and caught up, American educational outcomes have stagnated since the late 1970s. We have lost our educational advantage.


Economists have cited the economic benefits that individual students derive from college. Does that still apply?

Yankelovich: It applies more than ever. With the disappearance of virtually all highly paid, low-skill jobs, the only way that most Americans can fulfill their aspirations for middle-class status is through acquiring a higher-education credential and the skills that go with it. From a practical standpoint, the credential is more important than specific skill sets. Employers know that they are able to train qualified employees in specialized skills. For most employers, "qualified" means having core skills like the ability to read, write, think clearly, and bring a strong work ethic to the task. It is those core skills (and virtues) that higher education warrants.

Baum: The evidence for the individual economic benefits of college is overwhelming. While the wage premium for a college education is not at its highest level ever, it is larger than it was five years ago, and typical four-year-college graduates earn more than 50 percent above typical high-school graduates. Numerous careful statistical studies reveal that a relatively small proportion of the gap is explained by differences in the characteristics of students who go to college and those who do not.

Obviously there is considerable variation in earnings among those with similar levels of education, and it is not difficult to find individuals who never went to college but earn more than some of those who graduated. Those exceptions neither prove anything about the payoff of education nor provide sound examples for young people. Going to college is not a guaranteed investment, and we should do more to protect individuals against the risks of the investment. But it is a wise investment for most people. Some people worry that those who miss out on college now because of cost barriers or absence of good local options would have disappointing results if they went. But the evidence is the opposite: People who get a little extra help that enables them to enroll get higher returns, on average, than the typical student.

Murray: A large wage premium for having a bachelor's degree still exists. For everything except degrees in engineering and the hard sciences, I submit that most of that premium is associated with the role of the B.A. as a job requirement instead of anything that students with B.A.'s actually learn. The solution to that injustice—and it is one of the most problematic social injustices in contemporary America—is to give students a way to show employers what they know, not where they learned it and how long it took them. In other words, substitute certifications for the bachelor's degree.

Winters: Those who argue that the bachelor's degree has lost its luster in the labor market are ignoring empirical evidence to the contrary. As of 2005, after accounting for the differences between those who go to college and those who do not, the premium for a year of college education was about 13 to 14 percent of an individual's weekly wage. Employers clearly still value the general knowledge and work ethic that a student acquires in college. It is important to note that the benefits of attending college are found both across and within professions. Blue-collar workers benefit nearly as much as white-collar workers from a year of college education. That is, going to college makes you a better plumber than you would have been otherwise. Why? One reason might be that college imparts nonacademic, social skills that can benefit blue-collar workers, who often must interact with customers and clients who are themselves college-educated.


Who should pay for students to attend college?

Wolf: A combination of students and government—though government's primary role should be in underwriting loans and making sure that people don't stay away from college because they are worried that they might not be able to repay a loan if they get ill, are unemployed, etc.

Nemko: In the same way that shifting medical costs to insurers makes patients cavalier about whether to demand fancy tests and procedures, even when not cost-effective, the more the government and private donors (alumni, private scholarships) pay of the college tab, the less responsibly the student and family need to determine college's cost-effectiveness. Also, every time the government increases financial aid or a private scholarship is set up, it merely allows colleges to raise their sticker prices more.

Yankelovich: I think we should put ideology aside and use good old American pragmatism. The combination of inexorably rising higher-education costs and lower state subsidies is a disaster for low-income families. The federal government and private foundations can play an important strategic role in filling the holes and cracks in the system: giving help both to institutions that lack rich endowments, through grants, contracts, and subsidies for community service, and to students, through low-cost loans, scholarships, special work-study programs, subsidies for commitment to future public service, veterans' benefits, and other support.

Murray: Ideally, students themselves. If that means delaying college for a few years to save money, so much the better—every college professor has seen the difference in maturity and focus between kids straight out of high school and those who have worked or gone into the military for a few years. The ideal is unattainable. But somehow we've got to undermine the current system whereby upper-middle-class children go to college without having to invest in it.

Grubb: There's a conventional demonstration in economics that students (or parents) should pay to the extent that private benefits (like increased earnings) are the result, and that government should support higher education when public benefits are involved. Given the dominance of private benefits, that suggests higher tuition; higher levels of student aid to make college-going more equitable; and public assistance to support obvious social benefits like civic education, crucial underfinanced sectors like education and social welfare, research, and service in the public interest. The high-tuition/high-aid policy preferred by most economists has never been popular, in part because aid levels never keep up with tuition. But it's a simple matter to devise an aid policy that does keep up with tuition, and higher education should concentrate on developing one.

Vedder: I question the conventional wisdom that enormous positive spillover effects of college attendance justify large public subsidies for universities. If subsidies are to be given, they should go directly to students.


Does the United States view and handle this issue differently than other countries? Should it?

Yankelovich: Yes, on both counts. Most advanced industrial democracies distinguish more sharply than we do between higher education in the sense of a four-year college education and apprenticeship training. Theirs is a test-based meritocratic system. Our system of four-year and two-year colleges is more flexible, allowing greater opportunity for highly motivated students. Our democracy tips the balance, in keeping with our social norm of equality of opportunity. I am not arguing that our system is superior to that of other countries, but simply that it is a core American tradition that fits our culture and history—a bastion of stability in an unstable world. We should do everything we can to safeguard it.

Wolf: The United States is different. But it is right, and other countries are mostly moving in the American direction anyway, as more and more people go to college. Many European countries have a deep-seated resistance to the idea that people should pay for any form of education, even though that actually means in practice that (poorer) taxpayers pay for middle-class college kids. I think that Britain's student-loan system, however, is much better than the one in the United States: We have a single regulated/quasi-governmental loan company.

Baum: While some countries place more of the financial responsibility on the government and less on the students, the increasing prevalence of mass higher education is changing the equation in many places. Governments that can afford to support a small fraction of the population in their studies cannot afford to provide that same opportunity to the growing numbers for whom postsecondary education is becoming a necessity.


At what point does the cost of going to college outweigh the benefits?

Baum: That is a question that will have a different answer for different individuals. First, the benefits of going to college are much broader and deeper than the financial return. If the question is how much is worth spending, the answer depends on career goals and alternative options. But it is clear that at current college prices, and considering existing financial aid, continuing their education after high school makes sense for most people who are motivated to do so, even if that requires postponing a portion of the payment in the form of loans.

Wolf: Not a question one can answer! Benefits are not just in earning terms. And it depends on the quality of the education and what people get from it, how the economy develops, etc., etc. That is why it has to be an individual decision.

Murray: It depends on how much money you have.

Winters: If we are speaking only in terms of a monetary benefit, then the cost of going to college outweighs the benefit when the expected increase in lifetime income is surpassed by the cost of tuition, interest on student loans, and forgone wages while in school. Given what we know about the large economic return for a year of college, and even with tuition continuing to increase, we have not yet reached such a point. Maybe we never will.

Nemko: No. We have a moral obligation to help all students to make a fully informed choice of the wisest postsecondary option for them.

Yankelovich: Yes. We have both a moral and a political obligation to ensure all students and their families access to affordable higher education. The heart and soul of America's unwritten social contract is based on equality of opportunity, and the vast majority of Americans know that in today's economy, higher education is the main path to improving one's lot in life. Denial of access to this form of self-betterment violates the unwritten social contract, leading to public anger, resentment, and political unrest. Poll data show that such anger and resentment are on the rise.

Murray: We have a moral obligation to destroy the current role of the B.A. in American life. It has become an emblem of first-class citizenship for no good reason.

Baum: We have a moral obligation as a society to create the opportunity for as many students as possible to go to college if they are so motivated. We have a moral obligation to make the financial aspects of college attendance manageable and to ensure that students get the financial, academic, and social supports necessary for success. Doing the morally right thing also means doing the smart thing for our general economic and social well-being.

Caplan: From a moral point of view, far too many students are going to college—just as far too many people stand up at concerts.

Vedder: Sending too many students to college instead of, for example, postsecondary schools teaching useful trades (to become a beautician, truck driver, plumber) is a morally questionable exercise. However, the American egalitarian ideal runs strong in our society, so a good position honoring that tradition in a cost-effective way is to allow all minimally qualified students some opportunity to attend at least a low-cost community college, and if success is demonstrated, then be supported at a four-year institution. But many people have the financial means to pay for that themselves, and the notion that college is a universal public entitlement is economically imprudent and morally dubious.

Grubb: We do have a moral obligation, emerging from several centuries of concern with equity in a highly inequitable country, to make access to and completion of college more equitable. But rather than proclaiming College for All, we should be stressing High School Completion for All, emphasizing that such completion requires either college readiness or readiness for sustained employment—or for the combination of the two that has become so common.

Winters: Our first moral obligation is to ensure that students leave high school ready to attend college.

[Heidi]

1. Recommended.

This is an extremely worthwhile topic for discussion.

:kick:

[Nikki Stone1]

3. Thank you. Notice how the conservative Murray believes.

I have a feeling that this is what is coming.

[tonysam]

5. Charles Murray is an unabashed racist and classist

I don't know why anybody gives this snake a forum.

[Nikki Stone1]

26. I gathered that from his statements. That's why I bolded them.

I also think that if academia has him in a debate, we are really fucked.

[tonysam]

27. He's one of the biggest assholes on the face of the earth

The article should have identified him as having written that POS "The Bell Curve" back in 1994.

[Nikki Stone1]

29. Yes, it should have.

I thought the American Enterprise Institute ID was not enough.

[KamaAina]

41. Also another panelist is from the Manhattan Institute

which wants to be AEI when it grows up. :eyes:

Academic FAIL.

[Nikki Stone1]

80. Thanks for that!

I guess the Chronicle wanted to get opinions from "both sides".
:grr:

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. He may very well be an asshole.

But I found nothing in the bolded text above to disagree with.

The wage premium for degree holders has much less to do with what the person learned than the risk aversion of the person doing the hiring.

Actually, I wholeheartedly agree with this;
"The solution to that injustice—and it is one of the most problematic social injustices in contemporary America—is to give students a way to show employers what they know, not where they learned it and how long it took them. In other words, substitute certifications for the bachelor's degree."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I find it interesting that little attention is paid to the labor market in this discussion.

It really should be. 12 of the 20 fastest growing occupations require SOME kind of postsecondary education according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now, that doesn't mean that a BA is necessary - postsecondary can be anything from a simple certification program to a PhD - but I'm not sure how none of these experts touched on that fact as they talked about whether or not kids should go to college. You simply cannot go directly from high school to work today and get a life/family sustaining job.

[Nikki Stone1]

4. Excellent point.

This is more of a philosophical discussion and it doesn't really make sense in the larger context. I see it as a discussion about social class in America, under the surface.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. I agree completely.

Which is fitting, because though no one really wants to admit it, education had always been about social stratification until the advent of public education.

[kenfrequed]

15. Hmmph

Many of these people seemed more invested in ensuring that a college education is a privelage than anything. Not one of them suggested that it was a right or that we should do away with our cash strapping system of loans.

I found this entire discussion intensely elitist.

[tonysam]

16. Yep. People like Murray, though, are pissed off

minorities and women have "devalued" college degrees. You have to know where this POS is coming from to truly appreciate it.

[Nikki Stone1]

33. "The Bell Curve"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. That's what happens when you get a bunch of academians in a room.

You certainly aren't going to get a conversation grounded anywhere near reality.

[LisaM]

20. That is the whole crux of the issue

When there were more manufacturing jobs, this was less of an issue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. But even manufacturing jobs require some postsecondary these days.

We outsource production of solar panels to Germany. This isn't a cost cutting measure - Germany's tax rates are as high as the U.S. and the average manufacturing employee costs 25% more to employ. Then you have to add in the cost of transportation and setting up a multinational infrastructure. But we do it because we don't have people that actually go to school to run a 21st century automation system, which is required to build a solar panel. Germany does. Their vocational education is far superior to ours, and they don't have a culture of going straight to the assembly line from high school the way that we do.

[LisaM]

38. But what about trade schools?

Everyone's heading off to four year colleges - they're too full and people graduate with no prospect of a job.

I agree that you're not going to step out of high school and onto the line - but the obvious answer is schooling for skilled trades.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. That is exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm pretty sure I was rather explicit about that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. Jobs don't require 4+ years of college, employers do.

The distinction is important because we should recognize that education is primarily the money we pay to get the job we want. It is neither a guarantee that the applicant has the needed skills, nor that the student got anything that couldn't be obtained from the local library.

It's all about corporate risk-aversion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. Did you read my post?

I don't think you did.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. I did, and you're wrong.

It doesn't take a college education to run an automated assembly line. It takes a college education to get your resume on the top of the HR managers pile so you can get that job working inside.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

49. The part where you're wrong is by thinking "college education == 4 year degree"

Which I clearly did not say.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. My bad. I read "postsecondary" and interpreted "postgraduate"

mea culpa.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. It's alright - it's kind of an epidemic problem.

I think most people automatically read that, which in my opinion, is the entire problem. We need to move away from the concept that everyone needs a BA to get a good, honorable job.

[tonysam]

62. Actually few employers require a degree, either

A degree is a hindrance in this job market where most of the jobs are low-wage, entry level jobs.

Employers won't even look at you if you have a degree, especially an advanced one.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. My experience is the opposite.

I get zero consideration for jobs at which I have 20 years experience because I lack a degree.

[tonysam]

64. It may be just as likely you have trouble because you have twenty years experience

rather than not having the degree. Employers regard you as too expensive and wanting more money because you have the experience.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. You cannot finance a first world economy with unskilled labor. It's simply impossible.

The idea that education is a luxury instead of a requirement is outmoded at this point in our country's development.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

57. Delete. Dupe. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. Do the jobs require a degree or do the HR managers?

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/career_planning/8223

I count only 5 which require significant college level skills. All of the others could impart the skills on the job or at home.

We confuse "jobs needing degrees" with "jobs in which employers choose those with degrees". The latter is a sucker's game because there will always be an applicant who is willing to spend more money than you to get that job.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. I'd love to know which are the 5 you're thinking of.

But I made it perfectly clear that I'm not talking about "significant" college level skills. Postsecondary is anything from a certificate program to a PhD.

[Quantess]

6. There aren't enough good jobs for college graduates.

[tonysam]

13. There needs to be more emphasis on vocational training in high school,

and much less emphasis on college prep. The vast majority of jobs don't require a college degree or little training at all beyond high school.

People can make a perfectly good living and not go into astronomical amounts of debt going into skilled trades and the like.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. I absolutely agree with you.

The problem is that we've convinced ourselves that "college for all" is the solution and that anything less is either racist or elitist. We've undervalued skilled labor (socially, at least. Monetarily, there is a lot of money to be made for welders, power line techs, and a host of other professions.)

[Echo In Light]

8. Recalls some of the professor's pov/dialog in the first part of David Mamet's Oleanna

[Brooklyns_Finest]

9. Good read

In my mind, college is the only realistic avenue of gaining sustainable employment. What is killing our kids are the high cost of private institutions. I was lucky enough to attain a BA and MPA while only accruing $18K in debt. Some of my friends were not as lucky and have ridiculously high loan payments due. With that said, I currently work for the federal government. While my college education gave me the minimum qualifications for my current position, it was my military background that compelled my agency to hire me.

[mike_c]

10. K&R-- thank you SO much for posting this discussion....

I'm bookmarking to read later-- I'm a bit too busy with nickle-and-dime administrative tasks this morning to give it the time it deserves. But this is a discussion that we REALLY need to have, and by we, I mean educators and the society at large.

I think the social and individual worth of higher education is manifest-- it certainly is in my own life-- but we're beginning to run into problems because the model we've used for higher ed was developed to serve a different society with different needs. I've long thought that making an elitist pursuit egalitarian isn't necessarily the best model. Instead, we need to develop an egalitarian higher education model from first principles, starting with a wider range of educational objectives. Not everyone needs-- or really even wants-- a traditional four year degree. On the other hand, we should do much more to facilitate undergrad and graduate studies for folks who really want to take the usual scholarly paths.

In any event, the medieval university is not the best model to use any longer, I think. I'm really looking forward to reading this panel discussion!

[Nikki Stone1]

28. Hey Professor Mike, I was thinking about you when I posted this.

We should have our own forum on DU. :)

[RKP5637]

11. Quite Interesting!!! Thanks!!! n/t

[tonysam]

12. Murray, with the late researcher Richard J. Herrnstein

wrote the infamous "The Bell Curve," so everything this POS writes or says should be taken with a gigantic grain of salt.

[Zywiec]

14. Whenever people tell me how great the university system is in Europe

and how inexpensive it is, I always remind them that less than 30% go to the university.

Most go to a trade school. Do Americans want to limit their children's education starting in the 5th grade?

Who makes that determination?

:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. At least they aren't actively lying to their kids.

Not everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer, and yet that's the lie we tell our children.

[Zywiec]

25. Right, I agree that we should be setting the bar on our children's

future a lot lower. Someone has to dig ditches, why not yours?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. That's a false option.

There's a middle ground, you know, between saying that kids absolutely can "be anything" and telling them they should be digging ditches. By setting the bar too high, we create false expectations which can be just as damaging as low expectations. It also devalues a lot of very, very good jobs that we used to be very proud of.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. Most reasonably intelligent people with the means and the dedication can be a lawyer

Medical school is a lot more selective so that doesn't apply quite as much, but I think the principle is still there. Lots of very intelligent people can't be doctors and lawyers because they simply don't have the dedication to do the necessary work. Whereas I think most reasonably intelligent people could be lawyers if that is really their passion and are really dedicated to it and have the means to pay for it.

I don't think the mistake is telling our kids that they can be doctors and lawyers if they really want to. The mistake is pushing our kids towards these professions when they simply aren't interested.

[misanthrope]

42. Meanwhile, America has turned its colleges into trade schools.**nm

**

[mamaleah]

61. Americans have lost respect for trade skills.

I'd rather see 1000 plumbers than 1000 grads with a degree in Communications.

It's become very elitist. You MUST go to college. You must study 14th century literature or else you are somehow lacking. Lacking in what? Certainly not an income if you opt for a trade school!

Who is really lacking? The electrician making $50 an hour or the Starbuck's barista who can translate the Aenid for you but is buried in loans and really is growing weary of trying to live on ramen?

[Lorien]

67. Lacking in what? Knowledge. Information is power

it's not all about the dollars you'll make, it's about your awareness, your ability to think critically about the issues, to analyze them. "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"; only one of the truisms that comes from lacking a good education.

[Brigid]

78. I'll tell you how bad it's gotten.

A little over a decade ago, I was taking an English class at a well-regarded local community college. I wrote a paper about Shakespeare, and most of my classmates, especially the younger ones, seemed to have never heard of him. Now that's insane. Did they sleep through their high school English classes? Or were they never exposed to one of the most famous playwrights ever? I sahould imagine it's worse now. BTW, I graduated high school in 1976.

[mamaleah]

81. Knowledge is power is a great catch phrase.

Are you saying an electrician has no knowledge? A plumber? They have quite a bit. Sorry it's not ancient Latin, but at least their knowledge can feed their families and put a roof over their heads.

Instead they get looked down upon by the "university is the only way" crowd.

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. This is bullshit.

If you ask me, the problem with college today is that the classes aren't preparing the kids properly, and the schools aren't being held accountable. There's too much conceptualization, and not enough hands on experience. Some of those professors are sleep-walking through those classes. I think the college needs to be held accountable to gear those classes so that kids ARE in a better position to get American jobs.

Stop blaming the kids. Stop blaming the superior Indian school system, and start blaming our own school system which is all about constructing buildings, and not about improving and updating curriculm.

[shireen]

22. the real problem is wages and loss of manufacturing jobs

Parents think their kids will get better-paying salaries if they were college graduates. That should not be a criteria for better-paying jobs. Vocational training and training from apprenticeships should be just as valuable. Unfortunately, our society is too screwed up to recognize it.

[tonysam]

24. Which in turn lowers the salaries of the jobs which require college degrees

while these students are taking on horrendous debt. But then that's the point, isn't it, for all of this emphasis on college.

[Deja Q]

52. If that's the point, what's the point for?

If we're going to go tinfoil hat, let's go all the way. The 'why' of the point, not just stating a point exists.

I'd love to know.

[tonysam]

60. It's not "tinfoil" for God's sake

Too many college graduates means by definition the salaries of professional jobs go down, unless of course it is medicine, wherein enrollment in medical schools is deliberately limited in order to preserve the high pay.

The more applicants competing for a limited number of jobs, the lower the salary.

[haele]

23. The problem is Jobs rather than Educational opportunities -

Sure, it's nice to have the opportunity to expand learning skills by going to college; especially since learning skills such as coherence, logic, analysis, and research are woefully under-valued or ignored at the grade-school level in favor of rote memorization and "passing the test". It would also be nice if students had the choice to learn a skilled trade rather than a profession by having trade schools and apprenticeships available as a equally respected alternative to a 4 year college.

However, if there are no jobs for either the skilled trades person or the educated "professional" other than selling each other fries at Micky-D's, then College and Trade School are pretty much a time-waster for someone else to support the student while they're waiting in queue for the next soul-killing cashier, waitstaff, or telemarketer opening. It's not that education isn't important for the mind and spirit, but it's that there will be little use of that education other than for recreational or "status symbol" purposes at best. If your 4 years and a "gentleman's BA" at Harvard because Daddy and legacy admissions beat out someone who worked their way through a State University system for a 6 year BA with graduate studies in a job market, that shows how much education really matters. (Saw that happen with the daughter of a former boss over the final interviews at a Graphics company; she was the legacy Harvard grad and was so jazzed she beat out an SDSU grad she was sure she would lose the job to because "she f'd up a bit at Harvard and was almost dropped..." 6 months later, Daddy wrangled a favorable contract with that company...)

When unemployment and underemployment reaches a certain level, even a Master's Degree or a Journeyman's or Master's Trade certification can mean very little. It becomes a matter of "Who do you know or what would you be willing to give up..."

Haele

[Nikki Stone1]

30. + 1

:thumbsup:

[Nikki Stone1]

31. + 1

:thumbsup:

[Deja Q]

51. I know a person at walmart. She has multiple degrees, including a Masters...

So much for education getting anyone anywhere in life, like Rush Blimphead likes to claim for his bloated and equally undeserved wage...

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. I went to goodwill on Sunday afternoon.

My purchase was a copy of Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps...

The cashier made some reference to it like "what a coincidence"

I asked him, he said that he had read it as a liberal arts undergraduate at Evergreen college.

[Malikshah]

32. The "focus group" here is indemic of what is wrong with the university system

Administrators or wannabe administrators who appear to have bought into the University as Corporation philosophy.

The University is about opportunities and opening up new pathways to opportunities with regard to people's potential. It is not about a vending-machine mentality of putting your money in the slot and getting a degree so that you can make money.

Yes--my stance is idealistic, but god damn it, the corporation mentality is the most god-forsaken bunch of bullshit I have ever seen; one that leads us to the problems we have in today's society. The focus on extrinsic value of an education over the intrinsic value is tantamount to pissing on one self-worth.

[kelly1mm]

34. What about knowledge for its own sake?

I think way too much emphasis is put on the earning potential of college graduates as the basis for making the decision to go to college or not. In essence, turning what could be a personal growth/enlightenment experience into a job training program.

I know the above makes me sound elitist so let me tell you my own educational story.

Graduated from an alternative high school because I couldn't bother to attend regular high school on a regular basis. Part of this was because I moved out of my Mom's house and was on my own at 16 - working at KFC. My parents/grandparents had not completed even a 2 year degree.

Went into the Army - mainly for gi bill benefits. Also to get some discipline in my life. Worked well in my case.

Got out after 4 years and went to community college in CA for 3 years to get my AA in general studies - worked all the way through that period and had GI bill help but no family assistance. Luckily, I was in CA so tuition was only $40 per semester.

Transfered to Cal State. At the same time I began working for the US Postal Service - good job/benefits with no college necessary. Still had the GI bill and at that time tuition was capped at $500 per semester. Another 3 years doing that at night while working 40-50 hours a week and I had a BA's in History and Political Science. Had a lot of discussions and frankly derision from co-workers about why was going to college. Most felt I was wasting my time/money (actually I made money by going to college due to GI Bill payments) or that I was trying to be uppity. At the time I had no plans to leave the PO and was going to college because I loved it. I loved learning different perspectives on history, economics, politics etc. Was exposed to Thoreau, Marx, Nietche, Socrates,and other philosophers. My common retort to those at the PO was I was going to college so I could have great conversations at cocktail parties - actually I can count the number of cocktail parties I had been to on one hand.

My point is that I got a college education because I wanted to expand my base of knowledge. I had no intentions of using my degree at the time. Eventually I did "use" my degree as it was a prerequisite for law school that I went to 4 years after getting my BA - but I just needed a BA/BS - not the major. (went to school at night and continued to work at the PO until my 3rd year - no GI bill so I do have school loans now)

Again, my point is I think we "devalue" education when we try to put a "value" on it, ironically. Not everything in life should be valued simply on a cost/benefit analysis.

[Deja Q]

50. Knowledge doesn't put food on one's family. A previous "president" proved that quickly enough...

Though even a second-grader would be better with the use of grammar...

[kelly1mm]

54. True, but my problem is with saying that the cost of college

should translate into a direct financial benefit or else it is unworthy of consideration. I guess I could have gotten much of the same liberal arts education simply by going to the library but would have missed out on the discussions with fellow students and professors that enriched my understanding of the material. Again, I know that I was lucky - having the GI Bill, no children, going to school in CA (low cost at the time) but I certainly had no silver spoon or trust fund to fall back on.

I guess my question is do you think there is a benefit to a married with kids union manufacturing worker going to college to get a degree that will not advance his/her earning potential? I do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. This part caught my eye

"Bryan Caplan: There are two ways to read this question. One is: "Who gets a good financial and/or personal return from college?" My answer: people in the top 25 percent of academic ability who also have the work ethic to actually finish college. The other way to read this is: "For whom is college attendance socially beneficial?" My answer: no more than 5 percent of high-school graduates, because college is mostly what economists call a "signaling game." Most college courses teach few useful job skills; their main function is to signal to employers that students are smart, hard-working, and conformist. The upshot: Going to college is a lot like standing up at a concert to see better. Selfishly speaking, it works, but from a social point of view, we shouldn't encourage it."

Exactly right.

[BigBluenoser]

40. Remember that 70% of HS graduates go to college....

does not mean 70% of the pop goes to college. Dropout rates are close to 40% iirc, and college drop out is even higher.

60-70% of pop get HS, 45% of pop goes to college, 25% of pop will have a college degree within six years of entering college.

Those are rough estimates, but you lose a large amount of people along the way.

Even if you forced all HS grads to go to college, you would lose half of them or more. If you dumb down college to making it as easy as HS, there really is no point to it. College courses have become far too easy already in the last decade as the college as diploma vending machine "client centered" university has become the norm for mid/low-level regional schools. Drop dates have been extended into late fall (mid november, 3 weeks before exams) so that students never have to sully their transcript with an F. Makes it easier for "retention", the golden calf of the admins.

Whatever.

[Nay]

58. Thks for saying that college today is nowhere near as hard as college

in the recent past. I graduated from university in 1978, and there is NO comparison as far as the rigor, depth, amount of work, and, most important, quality of work required to "pass." At my workplace I check over papers and homework for a few employees attending college -- let me tell you, even in the private universities, anything goes. None of these students can write a complete sentence, much less a paragraph with a subject sentence, body, and concluding sentence. I have taught ALL these students that. It was something I learned back in 10th grade in English class. We learned to do that by producing a paragraph (on any subject we wanted) every week for the entire school year. The teacher graded us on how well we adhered to the basic format. NO ONE can learn to write effectively without having this, and other basic writing formats (like subject-verb for a sentence), drilled into their heads through repetition and practice. All that has gone out the window, not because hippies thought it was hard, but because high schools are under the gun to graduate kids rather than see to it that they know something. Colleges are under the gun to make as much money as possible rather than see to it that they know something. Thus, kids come out of HS and college unable to do the simplest things that any HS graduate in the 60's and 70's could do.

[GreenPartyVoter]

85. Even in the early 90s my friends and I marvelled at how

much easier college was than we had expected. It led us to feel simultaneously guilty over the happiness of getting good grades easily and disappointed with the knowledge that our B.S may have indeed been just so much bs. :(

[Deja Q]

48. Any cost-benefit analysis will show that no college is worthwhile, anymore.

Not if wages deemed acceptable for 1979 are deemed overpriced today.

But the corporations, when they don't say any of the following,

* consumers spend too much and that hurts the economy
* consumers spend too little and that hurts the economy
* consumers save too much and that hurts the economy
* consumers save too little and that hurts the economy

, will say we're uneducated too. (Hence the reason for offshoring, but that little claim can be blown out of the water very quickly. Anyone in their 30s~60s knows firsthand the downhill quality of products and services, particularly those from offshored sources. So it's not about intellect. It's about being cheap. Period. Even the pro-offshoring sycophantic lackeys need to understand that, though after saying the obvious 50 times it gets boring to continue to do so...)

Or until now, where now it's a problem too many people are wanting to get educated.

At least it's not the form of corporate-owned media where the same one message is repeated on every channel. We're lucky. We have the corporate-owned media where every contradictory message is being thrown out. Maybe too many people ARE going to college - most people can't be told "be an independent thinker" and then actually follow through and do so...

[RKP5637]

83. Exactly!!! n/t

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brigid]

77. Exactly.

Just let the snobs try doing without trained plumbers or electricians.

[Lorien]

66. Being well educated and thinking independently is one of the most subversive

things you can do as an American citizen. Make colleges unaffordable to all but the wealthiest; this is just another stage of the game in dumbing down Americans so that they will expect little from their corporate masters.

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. Independent thinking is not what a classroom promotes. n/t

[Lorien]

71. Maybe not in your classrooms, but it mine that's EXACTLY what they taught

When we were asked a question on a test we were required to back up a "true or false" answer with a written portion supporting our assertion. There are great schools out there that demand critical thought, and there are crap schools that only demand memorization. I'm sorry that you attended the latter.

[anonymous171]

74. Standardized Education is just another form of professionalization

Which means that it is completely contrary to critical and independent thought.

[Brigid]

76. Not unless all bookstores and libraries are closed down.

They can't stop you from educating yourself and getting info on your own. I learned far more that way than I ever did in college anyway.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. OMFG! Now, people are debating THIS???

:wtf: :banghead:

Just when you think you've heard it all.........................

[Yavin4]

72. You Need More Than High School To Have Any Hope of a Middle Class Paying Job

Whether it's a college degree or vocational training, employers simply will not pay anyone a middle class salary without some form of additional training beyond high school.

That's not to say that a college degree or vocational training or certifications will guarantee you a middle class salary. Trust me, I know. I have an undergrad, grad, and technical certifications, and I am currently unemployed. But I still have some hope. Without them, I would have to work a series of low paying jobs with no long term future.

[Brigid]

73. A while back . . .

I remember seeing an article -- I think it was in TIME magazine -- about getting admitted to college, especially the "elite" schools. The best bit of advice from the article was: Forget about the "label." Choose the college or orher educational institution that best matches your educational and career goals. For example, if you want to be a master chef, then go to the best cooking school you can get into. A four-year college like, say, Harvard, just isn't the right fit for you anyway. Makes sense to me.

[KamaAina]

79. Are too many Charles Murrays bloviating about who should or should not go to college?

All signs point to Yes. :eyes:

[ArbustoBuster]

82. I concur, and I'll gleefully misquote Murray to back you up.

We have a moral obligation to destroy the current role of Murray in American life. He has become an emblem of bad scholarship for a very good reason.

[Odin2005]

84. Charles Murray? You mean the Racist "Bell Curve" Fuckwit?

He can go shit bricks.