"Are Too Many Students Going to College?"

[Crissy]

Because we have had discussions on this topic in the past, I though some of you would appreciate this article.

[Heather in Neverland]

Because we have had discussions on this topic in the past, I though some of you would appreciate this article.

 

Wow, that was a very interesting article. I think I need to let it fester in my mind a bit before answering. But it does say a lot of things that people don't say but DO think. hmmm.....

[Audrey]

Because we have had discussions on this topic in the past, I though some of you would appreciate this article.

 

 

INteresting viewpoints in that article.

 

I am nodding my head in agreement at some. I think, though, that one of the things that should be discussed is whether or not high school graduates today are prepared to continue their education.

 

It has been 15 years since I was a prof, but even then there was a large portion of freshman students who simply did not have the basic academic skills necessary to succeed in university. My former colleagues are always bemoaning the intellect and preparedness of their students. They claim that it has only gotten worse in the past decade.

 

So, that begs the question: are too many unprepared students going to university, and if yes, should they be allowed admittance?

 

It seems to me that university admittance requirements are slipping all the time. Sure, the elite universities are still keeping a tight rein on it, but most universities (like state and most smaller private ones) are throwing the doors wider and wider open. I don't think that does the students any favours -- enrolling then failing out -- but I'm sure it does some pretty favours to the schools' bottom line.

[LibraryLover]

Because of the cost of college, more families are choosing state schools, so even state unis are rejecting more and more. Kids who would have gotten into top tier schools years ago are now attending state schools. So, I am not sure.

 

I think students may not be as prepared, as there is so much going on in the world that pulls them from pure academics, but I think anyone who really wants to go, and decides such of their own free will, should go. What does it matter if they take remedial classes at first. I don't think that's a big deal.

 

25 yrs ago at graduate student gatherings, I remember hearing profs talk about how poorly qualified frosh students were. Susan Wise Bauer writes in WTM about seeing the same huge gaps in her students today, and supposedly William and Mary is a 'competitive' college.

 

I think we expect certain things to be learned in a specific period of time and when it isn't, we call that not being prepared, or a 'failure' of our 'system'.

 

However, given that a child born today may live until 100 or so, I don't see why not being 'fully prepared' for something at age 17/18 is that much of an issue. My 10 yr old knows more about germs than the most brilliant physicain of the past did. It's all fluid.

Edited November 11, 2009 by LibraryLover

[Jenny in Atl]

I firmly believe in a never ending education, so the idea that too many (whether prepared or unprepared) are going to colleges & universities is beyond me. I get the whole $$ issue, and the struggle over who should pay, but I believe a better educated society is a healthier one. I'm including vocational ed as well as academic.

 

An active mind is a healthy mind. :D

[LibraryLover]

I firmly believe in a never ending education, so the idea that too many (whether prepared or unprepared) are going to colleges & universities is beyond me. I get the whole $$ issue, and the struggle over who should pay, but I believe a better educated society is a healthier one. I'm including vocational ed as well as academic.

 

An active mind is a healthy mind. :D

 

:iagree:Such rebels we are!

[Denise in Florida]

I firmly believe in a never ending education, so the idea that too many (whether prepared or unprepared) are going to colleges & universities is beyond me. I get the whole $$ issue, and the struggle over who should pay, but I believe a better educated society is a healthier one. I'm including vocational ed as well as academic.

 

An active mind is a healthy mind. :D

 

I agree with this ideal. I have always considered higher education important for many more reasons than just economic.

 

HOWEVER - :001_smile: The first job I had (way back in the 70s) was with an agency that collected student loans. Even then there were a lot of students who were convinced that college was the road to 'big money' but they didn't understand the reality. They couldn't complete the degree or lost interest but the loans don't go away just because you drop out. They don't even go away when you file for bankruptcy. These kids needed much better guidance. They were sold a bill of goods, fantasy wealth based on education they had to borrow money to buy.

 

Every time I see my local low performing school districts brag about the number of kids who go to college, I want to ask how many graduate? And how can they pay back loans when they earn minimum wage after it turns out they can't graduate.

 

:blushing: Yes, my college kid is taking out loans. Our college fund went poof (or fizzle) when the market dropped. I am committed to helping her pay them off one way or another. Sometimes you do what you have to do.

[kiana]

I firmly believe in a never ending education, so the idea that too many (whether prepared or unprepared) are going to colleges & universities is beyond me. I get the whole $$ issue, and the struggle over who should pay, but I believe a better educated society is a healthier one. I'm including vocational ed as well as academic.

 

An active mind is a healthy mind. :D

 

It depends (JMO) on whether they're going to college seeking education or going to college seeking a fast-track to big money or going to college because "that's what you do".

 

It depends on whether the college is actively seeking to give them an education or seeking to receive as much tuition as possible through increasing retention by any means possible.

[LibraryLover]

It depends (JMO) on whether they're going to college seeking education or going to college seeking a fast-track to big money or going to college because "that's what you do".

 

It depends on whether the college is actively seeking to give them an education or seeking to receive as much tuition as possible through increasing retention by any means possible.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with a person trying college then dropping out for a time or forever. There are worst 'mistakes' one can make in life.

 

I am not of the mind that such an experince is wasted. So you drop out of college? You still have the experince, good or bad.

 

I don't get what not graduating is such a bad thing.

 

There is no one way to live a life. So you try something that doesn't pan out perfectly?

[Sara R]

There is nothing wrong with a person trying college then dropping out for a time or forever. There are worst 'mistakes' one can make in life.

 

I am not of the mind that such an experince is wasted. So you drop out of college? You still have the experince, good or bad.

 

I don't get what not graduating is such a bad thing.

 

There is no one way to live a life. So you try something that doesn't pan out perfectly?

 

The experience might not be wasted, but the money certainly is. If one went into debt for that experience and no degree, that person is likely worse off than where they started.

[LibraryLover]

The experience might not be wasted, but the money certainly is. If one went into debt for that experience and no degree, that person is likely worse off than where they started.

 

 

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

I know I've not had a single experience in my life that was wasted.

Edited November 11, 2009 by LibraryLover

[Audrey]

There is nothing wrong with a person trying college then dropping out for a time or forever. There are worst 'mistakes' one can make in life.

 

I am not of the mind that such an experince is wasted. So you drop out of college? You still have the experince, good or bad.

 

I don't get what not graduating is such a bad thing.

 

There is no one way to live a life. So you try something that doesn't pan out perfectly?

 

 

That's true, but there are an awful lot of students in college because mommy and daddy insisted they go, who have no real investment or interest in their studies and who leave college no more prepared for earning a livelihood that when they started. It may not be a wasted experience, but it is still a poor excuse for going to college in the first place.

[Barb_]

I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, I agree with Laurie. I had two years of college behind me before dropping out to become a mom. I had planned to finish but became a statistic. Oh well. I don't regret the two years I spent working on a degree I wasn't destined to finish, but I might had I come out with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans...a distinct possibility nowdays in more schools than ever.

 

On the other hand, I tend to agree that too many are in college for the wrong reasons. Students go in with inflated expectations and without the work ethic or the proper attitude to make it through 4 years. My daughter goes to a state school and is frustrated beyond belief by many of her classmates.

 

One other small comment on a related note. I read this quote by Murray in response to the question, "Who should pay?" :

 

"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."

 

As soon as I read it, I thought to myself, "Must be a man." Sure enough...first name of Charles. While the advice to wait, save, and mature may be good advice for some, I've encouraged my girls not to delay college except in the most dire of circumstances if they have plans to graduate. I'm not sure of the actual statistics, but I'm willing to bet dropping out to have babies and/or get married is a pretty common cause of college derailment in females. The older one is, the more likely biology will bump up against ambition. Even if a woman postpones college for say, 3-5 years, and successfully graduates at 26 or 27, then she is attempting to start a career at the same time she's leaving her peak fertile years. Again, possible derailment at a critical juncture or alternately, she looks up later and realizes she's put off having children for too long and now it's too late. It's hard enough to return to school years after the traditional age, but a woman who would eventually like to start a family will find it an even tougher challenge. I'm not saying it can't be done, but timing is more of an issue with women.

 

Barb

Edited November 11, 2009 by Barb F. PA in AZ

[lgm]

I think the quote should be "Are Too Many Unprepared Students Going to College?"

 

And I note it doesn't matter if they are going to a votech, 2 year CC or a 4 year colllege or U - too many are in remedial courses that are making up for their public school that didn't bother to supply a competent teacher for the course. I am soooo tired of the 'blame the student' mantra. Our policy leaders need to make it so teachers can move between districts easily and also make it easier to move the incompetent on to another field. And they need to increase the number of competent STEM teachers. Let those engineers and scientists that have been laid off get into teaching without having to earn another degree...this is happening in some states, but not enough. Our children are losing out b/c of politics.

[SquirrellyMama]

Yes, yes, yes! Too many kids are going to college. I haven't actually read the article yet but this is something that my dh and I talk about a lot. It is also talked about in my circle of friends and we all agree that too many people are going to college.

[LibraryLover]

That's true, but there are an awful lot of students in college because mommy and daddy insisted they go, who have no real investment or interest in their studies and who leave college no more prepared for earning a livelihood that when they started. It may not be a wasted experience, but it is still a poor excuse for going to college in the first place.

 

I don't think anyone should be forced to go, but I don't think it's wrong for people to go for whatever they choose to go. Even Thomas Edison said "I have not failed. I have found ten thousand ways that don't work". :)

Edited November 11, 2009 by LibraryLover

[Sara R]

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

I know I've not had a single experience in my life that was wasted.

 

I just know that I've listened to way too many callers to the Dave Ramsey show that have racked up between $50,000 to $80,000+ in student loan debt, only to drop out or to go into a career that pays $30,000 per year. The college experience is nice, but it's not worth going into debt slavery for the rest of your life.

[LibraryLover]

I just know that I've listened to way too many callers to the Dave Ramsey show that have racked up between $50,000 to $80,000+ in student loan debt, only to drop out or to go into a career that pays $30,000 per year. The college experience is nice, but it's not worth going into debt slavery for the rest of your life.

 

 

Yeah. If you want to be a teacher, that's cool, but don't go to a school that is 50k/yr unless you don't have to take out loans. (Sometimes investments pan out, sometimes they don't).

 

Which is why state schools are so competitive now.

 

OTOH, my niece is an ER nurse and did owe 80K when she graduated (5 yr program and some special other course) and makes well over 100k/yr working 24 hours a week. She's not 30, and that debt has been paid already.

Edited November 11, 2009 by LibraryLover

[Sara R]

I think the quote should be "Are Too Many Unprepared Students Going to College?"

 

And I note it doesn't matter if they are going to a votech, 2 year CC or a 4 year colllege or U - too many are in remedial courses that are making up for their public school that didn't bother to supply a competent teacher for the course. I am soooo tired of the 'blame the student' mantra. Our policy leaders need to make it so teachers can move between districts easily and also make it easier to move the incompetent on to another field. And they need to increase the number of competent STEM teachers. Let those engineers and scientists that have been laid off get into teaching without having to earn another degree...this is happening in some states, but not enough. Our children are losing out b/c of politics.

 

Yes. It's all about the preparation. It's not just the teachers, though; it's the curriculum they have to teach (or not teach), and the philosophies that are behind education now. Does anyone (other than homeschoolers) teach grammar anymore? I grade freshman English papers, and not only is the writing terrible, but it is also so hard to communicate why their writing stinks. They never learned grammar so they don't have the language to understand the criticism.

 

I'll start a new thread on this topic.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Sara R

[cathmom]

One other small comment on a related note. I read this quote by Murray in response to the question, "Who should pay?" :

 

"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."

 

As soon as I read it, I thought to myself, "Must be a man." Sure enough...first name of Charles. While the advice to wait, save, and mature may be good advice for some, I've encouraged my girls not to delay college except in the most dire of circumstances if they have plans to graduate. I'm not sure of the actual statistics, but I'm willing to bet dropping out to have babies and/or get married is a pretty common cause of college derailment in females. The older one is, the more likely biology will bump up against ambition. Even if a woman postpones college for say, 3-5 years, and successfully graduates at 26 or 27, then she is attempting to start a career at the same time she's leaving her peak fertile years. Again, possible derailment at a critical juncture or alternately, she looks up later and realizes she's put off having children for too long and now it's too late. It's hard enough to return to school years after the traditional age, but a woman who would eventually like to start a family will find it an even tougher challenge. I'm not saying it can't be done, but timing is more of an issue with women.

 

Barb

 

I agree! Except I think this applies to men too. It's a lot harder to hold down a fulltime job to support a family and also go to college. maybe what should be done is make college three years.

[Lisa in Jax]

Crissy,

 

I read an article a while back that said that for most people, *success* at four-year university requires a minimum IQ (120ish). Statistically, those with an IQ of 120+ make up only 15-16% of the population. So, why are 33% or more going to college?

 

I'm not saying that kids should be discouraged from going, but I *do* think that some kids are set up for failure if they're encouraged to go despite not being ready/able to do what it takes to get a four-year degree.

 

Just to be clear -- I'm only talking about this in statistical terms. I'm not saying it's good or bad that so many kids go to college.

 

Lisa

[LibraryLover]

I agree! Except I think this applies to men too. It's a lot harder to hold down a fulltime job to support a family and also go to college. maybe what should be done is make college three years.

 

 

I've known people who have done that ; they continue to take courses in the summer. Of course, then you don't have as many hours to devote to a job to pay for college. College shouldn't cost 45-50 k/yr, imo. Dare I say this...it's not like that in Canada or western Europe. But oh, those are socialist countries, aren't they? ;)

[Sara R]

I agree! Except I think this applies to men too. It's a lot harder to hold down a fulltime job to support a family and also go to college. maybe what should be done is make college three years.

 

Absolutely. I'm LDS, and in LDS culture the marriage age is on average younger than the rest of the population. Men get married at around 22-25 (after going on a mission for 2 years from 19-21); women a couple of years younger than that. Education is also strongly encouraged. It makes for a rough few years in the early 20s. If my kids were able to start college coursework at about age 17, it would make that crunch easier to get through.

[Crissy]

So, that begs the question: are too many unprepared students going to university, and if yes, should they be allowed admittance?

 

 

To the first question I would venture to say that it is true.

If large numbers of students were denied admittance to universities due to the fact that they are unprepared, might our public schools act? Would they deny diplomas to the students who are not qualified to graduate? Would they take on the remedial work that so many universities are now having to offer?

 

I wonder if the response would be anything other than rage at the universities for their decisions.

[Crissy]

Crissy,

 

I read an article a while back that said that for most people, *success* at four-year university requires a minimum IQ (120ish). Statistically, those with an IQ of 120+ make up only 15-16% of the population. So, why are 33% or more going to college?

 

I'm not saying that kids should be discouraged from going, but I *do* think that some kids are set up for failure if they're encouraged to go despite not being ready/able to do what it takes to get a four-year degree.

 

Just to be clear -- I'm only talking about this in statistical terms. I'm not saying it's good or bad that so many kids go to college.

 

Lisa

 

That is interesting, Lisa. One of the quotes in the Chronicle article that I highlighted was this:

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.

 

Do you happen to recall where you read that article?

[Crissy]

I firmly believe in a never ending education, so the idea that too many (whether prepared or unprepared) are going to colleges & universities is beyond me. I get the whole $$ issue, and the struggle over who should pay, but I believe a better educated society is a healthier one. I'm including vocational ed as well as academic.

 

An active mind is a healthy mind. :D

 

I also believe in a life-time of education, Jenny, but I think there are an awful lot of students attending college who don't. They are there because college is the acceptable or preferred 'next step', but they don't really value the education that is being offered to them.

That must be terribly frustrating for the professors who know that there are plenty of students who want what they have to offer, but couldn't afford to get there.

[Jenny in Atl]

I also believe in a life-time of education, Jenny, but I think there are an awful lot of students attending college who don't. They are there because college is the acceptable or preferred 'next step', but they don't really value the education that is being offered to them.

That must be terribly frustrating for the professors who know that there are plenty of students who want what they have to offer, but couldn't afford to get there.

 

Maybe the real question is how do we change how most people view education? Why do most Americans care more about sports scores and who is the American Choice Award Winner vs. science, math, the arts (not pop top 40 stuff), history, etc...? Why is it cooler to fail than to grow?

[Crissy]

Maybe the real question is how do we change how most people view education? Why do most Americans care more about sports scores and who is the American Choice Award Winner vs. science, math, the arts (not pop top 40 stuff), history, etc...? Why is it cooler to fail than to grow?

 

YES! I would love to know the answers to those questions!

 

(:D Funny how you clarified that by The Arts you did not mean top 40 pop! :lol:)

[KidsHappen]

Crissy,

 

I read an article a while back that said that for most people, *success* at four-year university requires a minimum IQ (120ish). Statistically, those with an IQ of 120+ make up only 15-16% of the population. So, why are 33% or more going to college?

 

I'm not saying that kids should be discouraged from going, but I *do* think that some kids are set up for failure if they're encouraged to go despite not being ready/able to do what it takes to get a four-year degree.

 

Just to be clear -- I'm only talking about this in statistical terms. I'm not saying it's good or bad that so many kids go to college.

 

Lisa

 

I would say that a large percentage of the difference is made up by people with sports, arts, or other free ride scholarships that get all the help they need to graduate. There are probably a minority who succeed strictly due to drive and determination instead of inate smarts.

[DarlaS]

maybe what should be done is make college three years.

 

:iagree:

 

But then the colleges wouldn't make as much money requiring someone seeking a business or manufacturing tech. degree to take biology & art classes etc. In most cases, they could shave a year off most programs without hurting anything but their bottom line.

 

Looking at 2 year degree programs where my ds is enrolled, they mostly are around 62 credits for an AA degree, 18 of which are core classes (things we already did in high school). Students should be able to test out of those. I guess that's where CLEP comes in?

[Jenny in Atl]

I would say that a large percentage of the difference is made up by people with sports, arts, or other free ride scholarships that get all the help they need to graduate. There are probably a minority who succeed strictly due to drive and determination instead of inate smarts.

 

I would love to see some of these so-called "arts" free ride scholarships! Please share...

 

I only know about sports ones. :tongue_smilie:

[KidsHappen]

A large part of our problem is that high school is not preparing our children for college but it is almost impossible to make a decent living wage without a college education. Now days, a four year degree is the equivilant of what a high school degree used to be. People need this degree to succeed in today's society.

 

I think a good answer would be greater utilization of adult remediation courses, community college, adult continuing education courses until we have these young adults prepared to attend and succeed at a traditional college.

 

I believe that everyone who has the drive and desire to go to college should be able to do so.

 

As to who should pay for that, that's a hard question. I believe that our PS system should have our children up to freshman college level courses and if they do not then they should continue paying until they can get them there provided the student wants to proceed. Once they reach that level, then yes, I do believe the child should be primarily responsible for paying for their own college.

 

Part of the problem with student loans is that it is the only was that some people can go to college and there is very little leeway in how to pay them off. My hubby and I borrowed a total of $30,000 to go to college. A very reasonable amount for two college degrees especially considering that we primarily lived on that money as wel. The problem is that we got the loans when they we 9.5 percent intrest rate with the assurance that should the rate go down we could refinance at a lower rate. Well, through some strange quirk of fate we fell into about a four year period of time in which those loans' intrest rates can not be lowered. So with minimum payments are loan is growing. We currently owe about 85 thousand and with a 30 year plan that comes out to about $700-$800 per month. That is equivilent to many peoples mortgages.

 

It is worth is in my hubby's case. There is no way he could make the kind of money he makes without his degree. My degree, on the other hand, is practically worthless. It allows me to homeschool my high schoolers in the state of TN. However, I would feel much worse about my self if I did not have my college degree. It gives me a great degree of self esteem, appreciation and sense of accomplishment.

Edited November 12, 2009 by KidsHappen

[Melinda in VT]

I would say that a large percentage of the difference is made up by people with sports, arts, or other free ride scholarships that get all the help they need to graduate. There are probably a minority who succeed strictly due to drive and determination instead of inate smarts.

 

I thought the point was that most of those students (who start college but don't have the IQ identified as needed for success) do not end up successfully graduating.

[Audrey]

To the first question I would venture to say that it is true.

If large numbers of students were denied admittance to universities due to the fact that they are unprepared, might our public schools act? Would they deny diplomas to the students who are not qualified to graduate? Would they take on the remedial work that so many universities are now having to offer?

 

I wonder if the response would be anything other than rage at the universities for their decisions.

 

 

Of course there would be outrage, because we are in a culture that insists little Johnny and little Betty are SPECIAL goshdogdarnit! SPECIAL!! And they are ENTITLED to go to university.

 

I don't think the ps education system would shoulder more remediation or *gasp* insisting on actual minimum standards. It just keeps slipping further and further away from education into daycare.

[brehon]

I've known people who have done that ; they continue to take courses in the summer. Of course, then you don't have as many hours to devote to a job to pay for college. College shouldn't cost 45-50 k/yr, imo. Dare I say this...it's not like that in Canada or western Europe. But oh, those are socialist countries, aren't they? ;)

 

bolding mine You're right, it doesn't cost very much in Britain/Western Europe to attend university (not sure about Canada). OTOH, because the state pays for all or most of the students' tuition/fees (depending on the country and university), the state generally has a set amount that it pays per student per year. This amount in no way even approaches the true cost of educating students. Therefore, in many countries (i.e. England, France, and Germany) there are situations where courses/courses of study are being dropped or excellent professors are finding teaching jobs in US universities because the money simply isn't there to support the courses/profs. There's a reason that US universities tend to top every league table.

 

To be sure, there are many problems with US universities and cost is certainly one of them. I think it's shameful for an undergrad to graduate with over $50K in student loan debt. I don't think there is AN answer to this problem because I don't think there is A problem. This is a complex issue with many facets.

[LibraryLover]

bolding mine You're right, it doesn't cost very much in Britain/Western Europe to attend university (not sure about Canada). OTOH, because the state pays for all or most of the students' tuition/fees (depending on the country and university), the state generally has a set amount that it pays per student per year. This amount in no way even approaches the true cost of educating students. Therefore, in many countries (i.e. England, France, and Germany) there are situations where courses/courses of study are being dropped or excellent professors are finding teaching jobs in US universities because the money simply isn't there to support the courses/profs. There's a reason that US universities tend to top every league table.

 

To be sure, there are many problems with US universities and cost is certainly one of them. I think it's shameful for an undergrad to graduate with over $50K in student loan debt. I don't think there is AN answer to this problem because I don't think there is A problem. This is a complex issue with many facets.

 

 

Very true!

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Absolutely. I'm LDS, and in LDS culture the marriage age is on average younger than the rest of the population. Men get married at around 22-25 (after going on a mission for 2 years from 19-21); women a couple of years younger than that. Education is also strongly encouraged. It makes for a rough few years in the early 20s. If my kids were able to start college coursework at about age 17, it would make that crunch easier to get through.

 

I have to agree with the notion of starting college earlier. I have read and believe that often the last 2 years of high school are a waste of time and that perhaps students should graduate high school after completion of 10th grade and enter trade schools or college.

 

 

Of course, the caveat is that schools would actually have to have good courses to prepare students to enter college or vocational school after 10th grade which I think could be done if schools would lay off the fuzzy math and english IMHO:).

 

 

I also worry about the availability of higher education for all who want it since IMHO higher education is becoming un-affordable which is a travesty. My friends have said that their children will have $150,000 worth of loans by the time they complete college:001_huh:. So I guess any hope of owning a house or the American dream is gone in many cases. I cannot imagine, I only had $5000.00 worth of student loans and inflation has not gone up that much IMO. Frankly, I think something should be done to make college and higher education more affordable.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

bolding mine

 

To be sure, there are many problems with US universities and cost is certainly one of them. I think it's shameful for an undergrad to graduate with over $50K in student loan debt. I don't think there is AN answer to this problem because I don't think there is A problem. This is a complex issue with many facets.

 

I do think there is a problem with the excessive cost of a higher education since soon only the very rich will be able to afford a higher education which is a travesty and will be detrimental to our country IMHO.

[Margaret in GA]

I do think there is a problem with the excessive cost of a higher education since soon only the very rich will be able to afford a higher education which is a travesty and will be detrimental to our country IMHO.

 

Yes, I agree with this. I just read an article today in the Financial Times by Jeffery Sachs in which he talks about how badly we need to invest in education right now: " A second component is a massive expansion of education spending and job training. The unemployment rate among college graduates is only 4.7 per cent, while it is 15.5 per cent among those without a high-school diploma. The US woefully under-invests in education outlays for the poor, who drop out of school and then cannot find gainful employment." I think job training is huge. Our local high school brags about how all the kids are on a college track which I find crazy. Let's get some into a vocational track. Not everyone is cut out for college-- though I think the number is higher than 10% which the OP article referenced.

[brehon]

I do think there is a problem with the excessive cost of a higher education since soon only the very rich will be able to afford a higher education which is a travesty and will be detrimental to our country IMHO.

 

Well, as I said, I think it is shameful that undergrads can leave school with in excess of $50K in student loan debt. I didn't mean that there isn't a problem. I meant that there is more than one problem with higher education in this country; therefore, there simply won't be one solution. The state (federal level, more than likely, as most states are basically broke right now) could subsidize higher education; but, then one would run into the same problems besetting even the best universities in Britain/Western Europe. The gov't simply can't cover the true cost of educating students. Our gov't doesn't have the money.

 

I think there needs to be a radical change in viewpoint in this country from the top down. We need to stop thinking that only people with a university education are hireable. In order for this to happen, there would need to be a sea change in the attitudes of employers, gov't, businesses, schools, people in general. There won't be a rise in decent trades schools until we (as a whole) get over this "uni is best" attitude.

 

So, you're right, the escalating cost of higher education is a problem. Unfortunately, it's not the only problem with higher education and there won't be one solution to fix the myriad issues.

[Sara R]

One of the people in the original article compared getting a university degree to get an advantage, to standing up at a concert to see better.

 

My dh ran into this too. He was a terrific computer repairman, but couldn't progress in his employment without a 4 year degree. So he went back to school to get an engineering degree. It was a huge sacrifice. We'll do what we can to help our kids get degrees.

 

However, everyone getting degrees as a social policy is wasteful. Does anyone think that we have a better educated workforce now as opposed to 1950? Yes, students spend more years in school now than earlier, but I think people back then were generally more competent writers, more confident with at least arithmetic if not algebra, and so on. Because the K-12 education system is ineffective, now you have people graduating from high school who don't know how to use a ruler, and so can't succeed even in construction.

 

The ultimate way to reduce the cost of university education is for the government to get out of it. Housing prices got high because the government made cheap money (by artificially lowering interest rates and underwriting mortgages that shouldn't have been underwritten) available for those buying houses. College costs have increased for the same reason. If the government quit subsidizing student loans, at first it would be very painful for the students and colleges, but eventually colleges would have to cut costs to what they can afford.

[brehon]

One of the people in the original article compared getting a university degree to get an advantage, to standing up at a concert to see better.

 

My dh ran into this too. He was a terrific computer repairman, but couldn't progress in his employment without a 4 year degree. So he went back to school to get an engineering degree. It was a huge sacrifice. We'll do what we can to help our kids get degrees.

 

:iagree: The number of jobs requiring at least a Bachelor's is mind-boggling! So many of those jobs really don't *need* a 4-yr degree.

 

However, everyone getting degrees as a social policy is wasteful. Does anyone think that we have a better educated workforce now as opposed to 1950? Yes, students spend more years in school now than earlier, but I think people back then were generally more competent writers, more confident with at least arithmetic if not algebra, and so on. Because the K-12 education system is ineffective, now you have people graduating from high school who don't know how to use a ruler, and so can't succeed even in construction.

 

The ultimate way to reduce the cost of university education is for the government to get out of it. Housing prices got high because the government made cheap money (by artificially lowering interest rates and underwriting mortgages that shouldn't have been underwritten) available for those buying houses. College costs have increased for the same reason. If the government quit subsidizing student loans, at first it would be very painful for the students and colleges, but eventually colleges would have to cut costs to what they can afford.

 

I agree with your last two paragraphs; although, I don't think gov't interference is the only reason for the escalating costs. I think over-inflating the importance of Bachelor's degrees (and even Master's, in some cases) is also part of the reason.

 

Also, related to gov't interference, several states cap tuition rates at public universities (I know TX does this). Again, the tuition caps don't begin to cover the cost of educating students and, as a result, the universities tend to utilize higher fees to try to cover some of those costs. Even when I started at UT (over 10 years ago) the in-state tuition was actually quite reasonable, but those fees increased the total bill probably 4-fold. I'm sure it's only become worse.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Well, as I said, I think it is shameful that undergrads can leave school with in excess of $50K in student loan debt. I didn't mean that there isn't a problem. I meant that there is more than one problem with higher education in this country; therefore, there simply won't be one solution. The state (federal level, more than likely, as most states are basically broke right now) could subsidize higher education; but, then one would run into the same problems besetting even the best universities in Britain/Western Europe. The gov't simply can't cover the true cost of educating students. Our gov't doesn't have the money.

 

I think there needs to be a radical change in viewpoint in this country from the top down. We need to stop thinking that only people with a university education are hireable. In order for this to happen, there would need to be a sea change in the attitudes of employers, gov't, businesses, schools, people in general. There won't be a rise in decent trades schools until we (as a whole) get over this "uni is best" attitude.

 

So, you're right, the escalating cost of higher education is a problem. Unfortunately, it's not the only problem with higher education and there won't be one solution to fix the myriad issues.

 

 

I have to agree that college is not everything so to speak. Don't get me wrong, I love education, but I also think that some jobs over-emphasize getting a degree. For example, in some arenas they require a master's degree in just about anything to get a supervisory position without consideration of an employee's abilities and performance. I know of many people who only have the undergrad degree and who outperform those who have the master's degree.

 

OTOH, I am sure that there are many with graduate degrees who out shine those with undergrad degrees. I also know that I would not want to have as a doctor or a nurse someone who learned the trade through experience only;). I only believe that many employment decisions should not be solely decided on education. As to how the particulars would be handled, I am unsure.

 

As far as colleges, I do think with the great cost that some degrees could possibly be streamlined to lesson the cost and hopefully not affect quality. I also believe it would be more cost effective if we could get our kids out of high school by the end of 10th grade and into trade schools or college with the first 2 years perhaps paid by school districts at least partly;).

Edited November 12, 2009 by priscilla
clarify

[farmgirlinwv]

Ummm...nurses used to be trained by hospitals, not universities. There are a few left who still do it. They are fine nurses. BTW, I am a nurse, though not a hospital trained one.

[Barb_]

Ummm...nurses used to be trained by hospitals, not universities. There are a few left who still do it. They are fine nurses. BTW, I am a nurse, though not a hospital trained one.

 

Nurses are expected to take on more responsibility than they used to. The profession has changed tremendously in the past generation or two.

 

Barb

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Ummm...nurses used to be trained by hospitals, not universities. There are a few left who still do it. They are fine nurses. BTW, I am a nurse, though not a hospital trained one.

 

I am an RN as well and our hospital used to have a 3 year diploma program and was a school:) I guess historically that it was not school so to speak originally back in the 1800s, but it was for many years. I went the University route;) What I meant was that I would not want a nurse who was self-taught and passed some exams:) OTOH, I do believe that there are some professions/trades where it is possible to be self-taught.

 

 

For example, my dh had many years of experience in engineering and surveying, but does not have a degree in those fields. he did take many credits in those fields and has somewhat of a related degree. In our state, he was able to take state exams and become licensed based on his experience and testing. However, there are some who want to do away with this aspect of the licensing law and only allow those with specific degrees to test. As to which other professions should allow this I an unsure, but I do think it should be looked at IMHO.

[Photo Ninja]

One of the other problems is that it takes too long to complete a college degree at our state colleges because students can't get the required classes. It takes most students at our state colleges 5-6 years to complete an undergrad degree, even when they are willing and capable of finishing in 4 years. During that time the students end up taking courses they don't need just so they can remain full time students (to keep their health insurance, scholarships and loans), which increases the cost of college unnecessarily. But they have no choice if they want a degree. The college recruiters are telling high school students to plan on being at the 4 year college for 6 years. There are multiple reasons for this, including too many students, too few courses and a stated lack of school funding to hire more teachers or build new buildings to house an increased number of courses. After looking at this reality, many students are choosing to attend higher priced private colleges instead of the cheaper state colleges in order to finish their degree a couple years sooner. This also means they accrue more debt.

[staceyobu]

I am an RN as well and our hospital used to have a 3 year diploma program and was a school:) I guess historically that it was not school so to speak originally back in the 1800s, but it was for many years. I went the University route;) What I meant was that I would not want a nurse who was self-taught and passed some exams:) OTOH, I do believe that there are some professions/trades where it is possible to be self-taught.

 

 

I have a BA in psychology. Then, I went back to school to the only hospital based nursing program left in the southwest. I would put my nursing skills up against anyone with a BSN anytime. ;)

 

 

DH decided to try to finish his degree a few years ago. It just seemed like something we should try to help him accomplish. Do to job issues, we had to move and he had to drop out. We are now saddled with student loans. Yes, he has more experience and more education. However, I don't think it was worth it for the price we have paid financially. He could have probably sat and read ten books and know just as much. I feel very sorry for people coming out of college with huge student debt and low earning potential. Really, is it worth a degree at a lot of schools to be in a financial crunch for decades? I'm just not sure... I LOVED college. LOVED it. I would go to school forever. If you could get paid to be in school... I'd start tomorrow! But, it does come with a cost...

 

I think more vocational programs (like the diploma nursing school I went to) could be a very good thing for everyone...

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I have a BA in psychology. Then, I went back to school to the only hospital based nursing program left in the southwest. I would put my nursing skills up against anyone with a BSN anytime. ;)

 

 

DH decided to try to finish his degree a few years ago. It just seemed like something we should try to help him accomplish. Do to job issues, we had to move and he had to drop out. We are now saddled with student loans. Yes, he has more experience and more education. However, I don't think it was worth it for the price we have paid financially. He could have probably sat and read ten books and know just as much. I feel very sorry for people coming out of college with huge student debt and low earning potential. Really, is it worth a degree at a lot of schools to be in a financial crunch for decades? I'm just not sure... I LOVED college. LOVED it. I would go to school forever. If you could get paid to be in school... I'd start tomorrow! But, it does come with a cost...

 

I think more vocational programs (like the diploma nursing school I went to) could be a very good thing for everyone...

 

Hopefully no one thinks I was bashing diploma nursing schools or speaking to which nursing degree is better since I was not:) I was only trying to say that I think it is possible for some professions to be literally self-taught (homeschooled;)) with verification by examination, experience/apprenticeship, and references like engineering. I do not think nursing or medicine could be self- taught since the student would still need hours upon hours of student clinical experience under the guidance of a teacher. I do believe that some other professions may be able to have an option like engineering as well.

Edited November 12, 2009 by priscilla
clarify

[LibraryLover]

I think if one can get an undergrad degree owing 50k, they are golden. That's an investment of a bit over 10K yr. Given that private colleges are about 50/k year(!), owing only 50k is peanuts. Sure, it would be nice if it were all free...but it's not.