The coming meltdown in college education..

[creekmom]

Scary but insightful...

 

 

http://blogmaverick.com/2012/05/13/the-coming-meltdown-in-college-education-why-the-economy-wont-get-better-any-time-soon/

[Snickerdoodle]

And this:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1485280975

[Kirch]

Interesting. I've read a couple of the college cost threads here recently, and I've kind of figured that something like that would have to happen eventually. If college costs continue to skyrocket, it will simply be out of the realm of possibility for most people. So people will have to look at alternatives and/or college costs will come down. The real question will be how badly it will impact the overall economy in the meantime.

[nova147]

Ok, I only got through the first 1/2 of the blog post. But this is something I've thought about a great deal. When I was in high school, nearly all of the kids were going to college. Sure, there were a handful of kids who were not good enough students. But most of us went to college. And I'm sure many of us got student loans. My parents had saved a fair amount for my education, but I went to a private college. And the market wasn't as good in my high school years as it had been. So I got some loans. Many of my friends got lots of loans.

 

I got a degree in psychology. There isn't much that a BA in psychology qualifies you to do. The jobs I applied for wanted a BA, but didn't much care what field you studied.

 

I understand why we want a liberal arts education for our children. They need to learn to think. (I hope to teach my children that before they go to college, since I don't really trust anyone else to actually do it!) But a liberal arts education doesn't prepare you for the work world as it stands today.

 

We need to go back to an educational track system. Some students should be prepared to go from high school to work, others to a technical college, and a fairly small number to a tradition college environment. Doctors, lawyers, and probably some other professionals need to learn to think. They need that liberal arts education. But for the rest of us, it is a luxury we can't afford (especially at the prices they are charging now!).

 

My kids are still little. But I hope that by the time they graduate from high school, people will have started to realize that college isn't the only path for good students. Oh, and that I'll be able to convince DH that it's ok if not all of our kids go to college!

[joannqn]

My kids are still little. But I hope that by the time they graduate from high school, people will have started to realize that college isn't the only path for good students. Oh, and that I'll be able to convince DH that it's ok if not all of our kids go to college!

 

One of my goals is for my kids to have some sort of skill they can turn into self-employment. While I could see DS10 choosing a field that requires college, it is well outside our ability to provide. He'll have to get sufficient scholarships and loans (hopefully not too many loans) or choose something else. DD12 has no aspirations for college at this time, and we have yet to find her skill niche.

 

But I can certainly see college costs collapsing. If my home could lose 75% of its value, why can't the college bubble pop just as badly?

[DawnM]

I do want all of my kids to go to college and to finish. However, we are offering the cost of the local 4 year college and living at home as our "free" option. If they choose something else they will have to cover the difference.

 

So far, none of the boys have expressed a desire to go into anything that would require a specific school out of our area, but we haven't reached that point either.

 

Dawn

[SunnyDays]

One problem is that employers have now bought into the notion that one needs a four year degree to do the most basic, entry level job. At my last full time job, and it's been some time now, they wanted us to hire new BA/BS grads for customer service processing positions, and pay them a ridiculously low salary. These jobs easily could have been done by a well rounded high school graduate who was willing to learn.

 

Somehow everyone is going to have to get on the same, more realistic page to fix this, and that will not be easy. But for the sake of all our kids, it has to happen.

[Rosie_0801]

I can't understand why you all need general education courses in college. Surely that stuff should have been covered in high school? It'd be cheaper if your four year degrees could be cut down to three, like ours.

 

Rosie

[Kirch]

I can't understand why you all need general education courses in college. Surely that stuff should have been covered in high school? It'd be cheaper if your four year degrees could be cut down to three, like ours.

 

Rosie

 

Theoretically . . .

Scary but insightful...

 

 

http://blogmaverick.com/2012/05/13/the-coming-meltdown-in-college-education-why-the-economy-wont-get-better-any-time-soon/

 

Something I've been thinking about a lot is just the cost of college education. I know that sounds trite.

 

Too often these threads boil down into the usual arguments about "classical liberal education is good and teaches you how to think, and you can do anything with it, I know 10 people from my college days who graduated with degrees in art history and each of them now rule the earth" vs "anyone stupid enough to graduate with $200k in debt and no career path is a moron and gets what they deserve".

 

Just to be clear, I'm a WTM devotee, and strongly believe in the abstract value of education. However, that value has a limit, and I don't place the monetary value of such an education at the price of more than one house in my area, or a lifetime of debt. Also, I'm not entirely sure than government backed loans are the source of the problem, but I would be willing to listen to compelling evidence for better proof.

 

I'm so not interested in that discussion again. Here's what I am interested in: Why the heck is college so expensive?

 

Consider the online school, Lukeion. The charge, something like $300, for what all acclaim to be a very good high school Latin semester. Generally, two high school language semesters are equivalent to one college semester of a four credit class. So, this is roughly equivalent to $150 per college equivalent credit hour. And here's the kicker: The Lukeion class sizes are probably smaller than any class a college freshman would take, with more direct tutoring and feedback. I suspect they are just as rigorous as any four year school college, and probably more rigorous than most community colleges, the typical "budget" option. I don't have any direct involvement with this organization, and I suspect there are a dozen similar, if not even better.

 

$150 per credit hour times 120 hours for a BA is $18,000, which is still a lot, but only (only!) $4500 a year, which seems doable with a summer/part time job, and escaping without a ton of debt. Obviously lab classes are more difficult online, but seems like if someone wanted a traditional liberal arts education, there's not reason it needs to cost six figures.

Edited May 16, 2012 by GGardner

[datgh]

Very interesting article. I just hope it all works itself out before my 13 and 15 year old finish high school!

[Night Elf]

The cost of tuition scares my dd19. I'm trying to convince her to start at a 2-year college. I'm still in the mindset that a college education will open more job opportunities. Right now she's a server at a mexican restaurant. However, she has no idea what she wants to do and doesn't like the idea of starting college without a major in mind. I do see her point. She may only go one semester and decide it's not for her. It will cost her around $2,000 for one semester. Is it wise to incur a $2,000+ debt to just try something out?

[Sneezyone]

This article is assuming, of course, that the world stops producing young people willing/able to pay these prices and that higher ed institutions in the U.S. are completely dependent on U.S. students as consumers. That seems like a huge set of assumptions to make given what we've seen lately (universities marketing themselves, with great success, to students overseas).

 

We have a global economy with an increasingly wealthy global populace seeking higher education opportunities for themselves and their offspring. Students in the U.S. may choose not to pay or be unable to pay because of flaws in our system and the heavy debt load required but that has no bearing on other countries' ability to supply consumers. I don't see any reason, in the immediate 10-15 year future, why prices would decline for brick and mortar schools. What's more likely, IMHO is a system in which the haves get access to a rich liberal arts curriculum while everyone else gets some form of vocational training.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Sneezyone

[creekland]

This article is assuming, of course, that the world stops producing young people willing/able to pay these prices and that higher ed institutions in the U.S. are completely dependent on U.S. students as consumers. That seems like a huge set of assumptions to make given what we've seen lately (universities marketing themselves, with great success, to students overseas).

 

 

:iagree: The vast majority of colleges have seen more applications, not less. While some of this is due to some students applying to many colleges, a survey we (guidance counselors) filled out dispelled the myth that many students were doing this. It was a VERY small percentage (1 or 2%). Many also are having higher yields (students committing to go there after acceptance). Where middle son is going they are having to do some housing triples due to more incoming freshmen than expected. 16% of incoming Freshmen are international. Last year it was 14%. Before that it was 9%. I can't say I mind the percentage increase. To me, it helps diversity and is a plus.

 

And we're not paying anywhere near sticker price... merit and need based aid are helpful!

 

There will be some colleges who fold, but they won't be any that will be "missed" on a national basis IMO.

 

Statistically, there are more students heading to college after high school than in previous decades. Not all who head there graduate. That's been true for decades.

 

Statistically many more (higher paying) jobs require a college diploma. I don't foresee that changing.

 

Trade schools are equally as valuable for the right students and are considered post high school education.

 

Sticking with "just" a high school education is going to really limit people and some are ok with that. It's the "right" path for students that counts, not everyone following the same path.

 

I'm never in favor of huge debt for a college education. Some debt can be a good investment. Hubby and I both had some and it got paid off quickly with oodles more in return every year thereafter. Huge debt is a ball and chain.

 

My guys are going to college. ;)

[creekland]

Did anyone else notice the actual numbers?

 

While the average debt is around 24K, the median debt is just 12K.

 

For those who forgot their math terms, ;), median means middle. That means 12K is the halfway point. Half of college grads have LESS than 12K in debt when they graduate.

 

To me, pending degree and job plans, even 24K is reasonable as an investment. 12K definitely is do-able (again, knowing the actual student and plans).

 

The problem loans tend to be those for-profit schools who promise the world and deliver little while racking up far more debt.

 

The second problem is people who choose colleges that are more expensive than they can afford. I'm not talking applications - both of my guys colleges look like we can't afford them. I'm talking about actual price after merit and/or need based aid (not loans) is applied. If you need a name (or location) that isn't offering much and you take on oodles of loans, that's your problem.

[Iucounu]

The problem loans tend to be those for-profit schools who promise the world and deliver little while racking up far more debt.

Yes, such as law schools. The problem with those types of debts, incurred in education that won't pan out for many, is that the debt may be forgiven through Income Based Repayment or other programs, though it's not so easily dischargeable in bankruptcy as many other types of debt. I see the problem as stemming from unrealistic educational expectations in general, as well as hyped or outright fraudulent claims or omissions by some schools.

 

I think a lot of this is due to lack of transparency in some key areas, same as the subprime mess, though of course also vastly different in the details. Kids heading off to college or grad school don't have the ability to accurately assess how much their degree will actually be worth, partly due to the shaky economy making predictions of employability guesswork, and partly due to lack of information. That means that market forces don't work well any more to influence education choices; someone can do her best to pick a profession, then can go into a years-long course of study and come out the other side with nothing.

 

For a long time it's been the norm to rack up big debt to get a professional degree. It's risky now in a way it's never been before to go into those fields, but I wouldn't say that it's just the debtors' problem, any more than I'd blame someone who finances a car and signs a lease, then loses his job.

[Carrie12345]

I can't understand why you all need general education courses in college. Surely that stuff should have been covered in high school? It'd be cheaper if your four year degrees could be cut down to three, like ours.

 

Rosie

 

I agree. I'd like to take some general classes for my own enjoyment, but I'm looking at going back to school and can't understand why I *need* to take art, gym, history, or a language for an unrelated degree.

[creekland]

 

Kids heading off to college or grad school don't have the ability to accurately assess how much their degree will actually be worth, partly due to the shaky economy making predictions of employability guesswork, and partly due to lack of information. That means that market forces don't work well any more to influence education choices; someone can do her best to pick a profession, then can go into a years-long course of study and come out the other side with nothing.

 

For a long time it's been the norm to rack up big debt to get a professional degree. It's risky now in a way it's never been before to go into those fields, but I wouldn't say that it's just the debtors' problem, any more than I'd blame someone who finances a car and signs a lease, then loses his job.

 

Life (and future plans) has always been risky. That's nothing new. All one can do is look at their best odds. Every stat I've looked at has shown the best odds are with post high school education (college or trade school). I've seen it IRL with students at our school. Yes, someone can parade out the few (from this generation - older generations don't count - different society now) who make it without college, but that's kind of akin to telling someone to buy a lottery ticket and count on that. It will work for some. It won't for the vast majority. The difference between the two is that those who make it with nothing post high school often have traits identifiable while still in high school that show they will be successful.

 

Those who make it are VERY seldom those mulling around wondering what to do in life. I don't exactly recommend high priced colleges for the latter either. CC classes can sometimes be useful - as is getting a low paying job (that's inspired many to get their degree later WITH motivation).

[elegantlion]

One problem is that employers have now bought into the notion that one needs a four year degree to do the most basic, entry level job. At my last full time job, and it's been some time now, they wanted us to hire new BA/BS grads for customer service processing positions, and pay them a ridiculously low salary. These jobs easily could have been done by a well rounded high school graduate who was willing to learn.

 

 

The company dh works for required a BA/BS for the secretary. Um, I'm all for professionalism in the administrative side, I worked as a receptionist for a while, but it doesn't require a BA/BS to know how to be a good secretary. Many of finest admin people I've known in my life had no degree.

 

Now off to read the articles.

[Iucounu]

Life (and future plans) has always been risky. That's nothing new.

What's fairly new is the extraordinarily high risk and lack of opportunity. Couple that with problems like past lack of transparency in employment statistics for attorneys etc., and it's a recipe for big school debt that may eventually result in massive defaults.

 

Those who make it are VERY seldom those mulling around wondering what to do in life. I don't exactly recommend high priced colleges for the latter either.

Sure, but there are also many non-mullers who have racked up big debt and not been able to make it in their chosen field. Not every failure is due to a lack of vision, and opportunity does not always come to those who wait or actively seek it out, in a downsized employment market. These are turbulent times.

 

I'd say that anyone who in these times racks up big debt in an uncertain economy, and going into a profession with an uncertain future, is either an idiot or should be very sure of what they're doing, much more sure than in the past-- either have family connections that can ensure a job, or a job lined up prior to grad school. Still, a lot of the people with a big share of that $850B+ school debt incurred it when things were substantially different: law school employment statistic inflation was largely undiscovered/unreported, the Great Recession hadn't hit, etc.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Iucounu

[Jane in NC]

Did anyone else notice the actual numbers?

 

While the average debt is around 24K, the median debt is just 12K.

 

For those who forgot their math terms, ;), median means middle. That means 12K is the halfway point. Half of college grads have LESS than 12K in debt when they graduate.

 

To me, pending degree and job plans, even 24K is reasonable as an investment. 12K definitely is do-able (again, knowing the actual student and plans).

 

The problem loans tend to be those for-profit schools who promise the world and deliver little while racking up far more debt.

 

The second problem is people who choose colleges that are more expensive than they can afford. I'm not talking applications - both of my guys colleges look like we can't afford them. I'm talking about actual price after merit and/or need based aid (not loans) is applied. If you need a name (or location) that isn't offering much and you take on oodles of loans, that's your problem.

 

This is one of the few articles/commentaries that made note of the mean vs. median, something that has driven me bananas in the college debt discussions. Journalists have demonstrated an ignorance of statistics while harping on extreme cases, i.e. $100K+ debt for Social Work degrees. (Not to pick on social workers but I wanted to mention a field where salaries tend to be low.) The point is that the minority of extreme cases (includong debt incurred for things like med school) drive up the mean.

 

College may not be the answer for all, but some post-secondary education (be it college or tech training) usually leads a better job, anomolies aside.

 

The for-profits are employing what I see as deceptive practices. I question whether the Feds should subsidize these programs with Pellls and Staffords.

 

The immediate problem that I see on the horizon are state Unis. Budget cutbacks are hitting them hard. Missions may have to change although many of us who have worked in them would like to see scaling back of administration and their perks.

[Catherine]

It's comparing apples and oranges to compare college educations to houses. People don't resell their educations hoping for a profit. There is no reselling. What would an education "bubble burst" look like?

[Mama Geek]

The question of why colleges are so expensive is interesting. I figure it is a mixture of things. From having to pay the benefits promised to staff and in particular tenured professors (I think most companies and government positions have promised more long term benefits than they can actually afford) to funding the multitude of extracurricular activities, to some of it just being because of supply and demand (like on campus housing, why is on campus housing sooooo much more expensive in a lot of cases than an apartment off campus?) The college I graduated from is a land grant college. I don't know if the government pays to maintain that or if the college does. I don't really know where the rest of the money goes, does anyone else have ideas?

[tuzor]

 

We need to go back to an educational track system. Some students should be prepared to go from high school to work, others to a technical college, and a fairly small number to a tradition college environment. Doctors, lawyers, and probably some other professionals need to learn to think. They need that liberal arts education. But for the rest of us, it is a luxury we can't afford (especially at the prices they are charging now!). !

 

Interesting perspective, many foreign countries have track based education. Not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer etc but can everyone benefit from a trade? Very interesting.

 

One problem is that employers have now bought into the notion that one needs a four year degree to do the most basic, entry level job. At my last full time job, and it's been some time now, they wanted us to hire new BA/BS grads for customer service processing positions, and pay them a ridiculously low salary. These jobs easily could have been done by a well rounded high school graduate who was willing to learn.

 

Somehow everyone is going to have to get on the same, more realistic page to fix this, and that will not be easy. But for the sake of all our kids, it has to happen.

in addition many of the entry level jobs most college graduates qualify for have now been shipped over seas. I wish the canidates running for office would speak the truth when discussing the economy and job futures. The truth is that there are not many general jobs available they have all been given to other countries. Cheap labor equals greater profit margins which means less jobs to go around for Americans.

As far as job creation goes from what I can tell those jobs will be sconce related and cater to a vary narrow market. The advantage some of us hs may have is that some of our children may actually learn a foreign language and be open to moving overseas for a job.

[Mynyel]

I can't understand why you all need general education courses in college. Surely that stuff should have been covered in high school? It'd be cheaper if your four year degrees could be cut down to three, like ours.

 

Rosie

 

 

I knew I liked you Rosie.

 

My dh, who has a degree in computers had to take courses like Psychology, Sociology and English 101.

 

Why? You don't need to talk to computers so why Psych or Sociology? The "language" you write in for computers doesn't require you to know how to write an essay or narrate (or whatever else) for English 101.

 

I would agree that 75% of a 4 year degree is all fluff classes that aren't needed.

 

For instance for my HR degree.. what did I need a marketing class for??

 

Ugh, I hate.. hate... college. However in order to go anywhere in life (aside from doing it yourself) it is pretty much required.

 

Chaps my hide.

[vonfirmath]

I understand why we want a liberal arts education for our children. They need to learn to think. (I hope to teach my children that before they go to college, since I don't really trust anyone else to actually do it!) But a liberal arts education doesn't prepare you for the work world as it stands today.

 

This strikes me with two things.

 

1) I'm not sure our education today (whether liberal arts or any other) IS teaching our kids to think.

 

2) Why does one have to go to college to learn how to think? There are quite a few examples of thinkers without a college degree.

[Iucounu]

My dh, who has a degree in computers had to take courses like Psychology, Sociology and English 101.

 

Why? You don't need to talk to computers so why Psych or Sociology? The "language" you write in for computers doesn't require you to know how to write an essay or narrate (or whatever else) for English 101.

 

I would agree that 75% of a 4 year degree is all fluff classes that aren't needed.

A computer person still needs to be able to interact with people-- it's not like you plug yourself into the machine and communicate in binary from then on.

 

There's a certain degree of what I'd call fluff, but probably not close to 75%. I think science requirements tend to be an area of waste-- why would a computer science major need to take earth science? Alternate choices for any type of course that are worthless towards a certain major ought to be off limits; either they need the classes or they don't. In your husband's situation, I think the English class is a fine requirement, but not the psychology or sociology.

[justamouse]

One problem is that employers have now bought into the notion that one needs a four year degree to do the most basic, entry level job. At my last full time job, and it's been some time now, they wanted us to hire new BA/BS grads for customer service processing positions, and pay them a ridiculously low salary. These jobs easily could have been done by a well rounded high school graduate who was willing to learn.

 

Somehow everyone is going to have to get on the same, more realistic page to fix this, and that will not be easy. But for the sake of all our kids, it has to happen.

 

The notion wasn't bought into. We *have* to hire college grads, because kids with HS diplomas can't spell or do math. It's a sad, sad, day when a manufacturing company needs to see degrees, and employees with working visas and no college do better than a fresh faced American high school grad.

 

Seriously. And it's something many of the small business people know.

 

And tracking kids isn't the American way. The American Dream is about breakout, and when you're tracked to do ____ and not given the opportunity to go to college (if you can) your opportunity for a breakout is that much less. College has to be available for all. Now, if we could just make it affordable...

Edited May 16, 2012 by justamouse

[vonfirmath]

There's a certain degree of what I'd call fluff, but probably not close to 75%. I think science requirements tend to be an area of waste-- why would a computer science major need to take earth science? Alternate choices for any type of course that are worthless towards a certain major ought to be off limits; either they need the classes or they don't. In your husband's situation, I think the English class is a fine requirement, but not the psychology or sociology.

 

I agree with needing English for computer programming.

 

I programmed Access databases for a while. Programmers need to put comments in their code (explaining what that bit of code does) that are readable both by others and by themselves when they go back to work on that code. Programmers also write messages to the user explaining to them what needs to be done/how to work the program/what the problem is when an error occurs. Depending on the size of the project, programmers also either write the help documentation for the program or write up what it does so a technical writer can write the help documentation. (though personally I think help is more accurate when the programmer does the writing!)

 

PS I only have an Associates degree (and earned that while working for Boeing as a database programmer). So far this has not prevented me from doing anything I actually wanted to do. Yes, I wish I had been more studious and not flunked out of college. But I have found experience to be much more valuable in looking for a job than the degree itself. So it is getting that first job that the degree might be the most help. And even now, with two bachelors degrees and a Masters, my husband is finding it hard to find the first job without the experience. So it does not solve the problem either.

Edited May 16, 2012 by vonfirmath

[Mama Geek]

This strikes me with two things.

 

1) I'm not sure our education today (whether liberal arts or any other) IS teaching our kids to think.

 

2) Why does one have to go to college to learn how to think? There are quite a few examples of thinkers without a college degree.

 

Kids need to be taught to think long before college.

[Mama Geek]

The notion wasn't bought into. We *have* to hire college grads, because kids with HS diplomas can't spell or do math. It's a sad, sad, day when a manufacturing company needs to see degrees, and employees with working visas and no college do better than a fresh faced American high school grad.

 

Seriously. And it's something many of the small business people know.

 

And tracking kids isn't the American way. The American Dream is about breakout, and when you're tracked to do ____ and not given the opportunity to go to college (if you can) your opportunity for a breakout is that much less. College has to be available for all. Now, if we could just make it affordable...

 

I thought the reason for hiring college grads is mostly because so many people who now have college degrees. Why hire someone with a high school degree when you can get someone with a college degree for the same money?

[Princess Peach]

We need to go back to an educational track system. Some students should be prepared to go from high school to work, others to a technical college, and a fairly small number to a tradition college environment.

 

 

:iagree:

 

Unfortunately, my DH's school just had an assembly for juniors and seniors encouraging everyone to go to 4-year college. "You have to go to college to be successful!" "You can afford it!" I guess it doesn't bother them that my DH has kids in his class that are homeless. Not to mention there is a fabulous technical career center at the school that gives scholarships to community colleges in the state and there are jobs *waiting* for qualified grads. :confused:

[Haiku]

While colleges and universities are building new buildings for the english , social sciences and business schools, new high end, un-accredited , BRANDED schools are popping up that will offer better educations for far, far less and create better job opportunities.

 

No. These schools he is referring to are well-known for ripping off both government and student.

 

Their training and degrees are worthless. Congress is looking into tightening laws to restrict them from their pernicious business practices.

 

Tara

Edited May 16, 2012 by TaraTheLiberator

While colleges and universities are building new buildings for the english , social sciences and business schools, new high end, un-accredited , BRANDED schools are popping up that will offer better educations for far, far less and create better job opportunities.

No. These schools he is referring to are well-known for ripping off both government and student.

 

Their training and degrees are worthless. Congress is looking into tightening laws to restrict them from their pernicious business practices.

 

Tara

 

I think his argument would have been much stronger if he had actually named some of these new 'high end, un-accredited , BRANDED schools'. I didn't get the impression that he has talking about the for-profit schools like University of Phoenix, as you rightly point out that Congress is considering going after. Clearly, UoP and their ilk aren't 1) new 2) cheaper 3) better.

 

So what's an example of a school he is talking about?

[FaithManor]

I thought the reason for hiring college grads is mostly because so many people who now have college degrees. Why hire someone with a high school degree when you can get someone with a college degree for the same money?

 

While this contributes to the problem, it is not the real reason. My dad, who has a heating/cooling business will not hire anyone with less than an associate's degree even though there is probably very, very little that the student learned in college that is helpful directly to the job...on-the-job training being the norm. This is because the local high school grads education was so watered down that they aren't capable of being good employees. Too many of them cannot do even basic math, much less the little bit of easy algebra or geometry required for the position, or communicate effectively even in a memo (you'd be surprised how many graduated with 3.0 or higher from our local high school and cannot capitalize a sentence, use end punctuation, write a solid simple sentence, take the time to look up a technical word that must be spelled right in order for employee b. to know what employee a. meant, read a pamphlet or brochure written at a 6th grade level and then be able to form a simple paragraph summarizing the information he/she just read, learn the basics of using Quickbooks software, knows the difference between "payable" and "receivable", figure gas mileage for a company vehicle, etc. So, he won't even hire a high school grad to do custodial work. Don't apply unless you have two years of college behind you, at least one recommendation from a college professor, and will provide a copy of your college transcript. This is in order to earn a starting wage of $11.00 per hour since he's going to then spend two years training the individual to a place where he starts to see a return on his money for all of his hard work.

 

In our area, a college degree is considered to be the high school degree of 20 or 30 years ago!

 

Faith

[leeannpal]

I do want all of my kids to go to college and to finish. However, we are offering the cost of the local 4 year college and living at home as our "free" option. If they choose something else they will have to cover the difference.

 

So far, none of the boys have expressed a desire to go into anything that would require a specific school out of our area, but we haven't reached that point either.

 

Dawn

We will do the same with the added option of online classes if she chooses. Of course, if she gets scholarships that amount to much, she will have a wider range of options.

[m0mmaBuck]

I can't understand why you all need general education courses in college. Surely that stuff should have been covered in high school? It'd be cheaper if your four year degrees could be cut down to three, like ours.

 

Rosie

 

:iagree:

 

I believe to some extent that the colleges are self-perpetuating institutions. They require everyone to take (and pay for) basic studies courses that don't necessarily have any application to the student's desired career. The money and time would be better spent with each student focusing on the degree they intended to acquire and skills that directly apply to that career. They could still have 4-year degrees, but why not tailor the degree to the student and his or her goals. Of course this would result in more of a "trade school" approach, but what is wrong with that?

 

For instance, in my job I use speech and writing every day. However, I do not pull out my scientific calculator and perform calculus, yet I was required to take it. I use psychology, biology, chemistry, and physics daily, but P.E. was entirely unnecessary. I enjoyed some of my humanities (theater apprec, music apprec, archaelogy, etc) but none of them apply to what I do. More sciences would have made more sense for me. For an accountant, more math would make sense.

 

Of course you will always have those students who go to college with no declared major because they have no idea what they want to do with their lives. THOSE are the people who should take a broad variety of classes to "find themselves," and once they find their niche they could be placed in the correct program to achieve a degree specifically tailored to them.

 

It will never happen because either it's too hard for our education system to wrap its collective mind around education tailored to the individual. It's easier to have a list of courses everyone must be subjected to regardless of the end goal and then put the directed courses at the end for anyone who survives two years of high school review.

[Home'scool]

I found a few good arguments online for the general education courses.

 

"The major requirements help you become an expert in something and the Gen Ed requirements help you become a well-rounded, capable and confident adult. While both are valuable independently, it is the combination that propels students to a successful future."

 

"You might make a good biologist, or historian, or psychologist, or something else totally outside your present horizon. You might be very good at something you now think you hate. You'll never know unless you get some exposure to the different branches of learning.

One Final Reason For General Education Protesting the Beijing Olympics, 2008

Thanks to the Internet, we all live in a goldfish bowl.

 

General Education can prevent you from looking like a complete idiot in front of the whole world.

 

 

If you don't know what's wrong with the sign, take some history classes."

 

There are a lot of reasons for gen ed courses. College is still a time to explore all your options.

[m0mmaBuck]

One needs the gen ed humanities courses so that one can make decisions and vote responsibly. Otherwise, history repeats itself.

 

This statement infers that those without college degrees cannot make decisions and vote responsibly. Not everyone chooses a career that requires college, and not everyone who goes to college becomes a great thinker.

[butterflymommy]

Sorry if this is a repeat but there is a related article on the nytimes:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/business/student-loans-weighing-down-a-generation-with-heavy-debt.html?pagewanted=all

 

The reader comments are even more interesting than the article.

[m0mmaBuck]

This statement infers incorrectly that the content of gen ed courses are only acquired by those with college degrees. I disagree with the words you are trying to write with my pen.

 

I apologize for misunderstanding your intent. I have come across many who believe that those who don't have college educations are somehow inferior beings. I am glad to read that you are not among them.

[Rosy]

Doomsday!! Yay!! Gotta love doomsday blogs.

 

If the money dries up, the market will correct itself, just like the housing market did. Theoretically, fewer people will go to college, but employers will also stop using college degrees to weed out prospective employees. Really, many jobs do not *need* to be done by someone who is college educated, it's just easier for employers to require a degree than to test for adaptability, problem solving skills, ability to work toward a goal, etc.

 

There are a couple factors in pretty much any education-is-so-expensive discussion that bug me--1) educational snobbery, and 2) the social factor.

 

1) In my state, public universities are more than adequate and tuition costs under $10,000 a year. Community colleges are even cheaper, and some would argue provide a better education at the 100 and 200 level. People who insist on expensive private school educations would do well to look at the cold, hard facts about what the advantages of each are.

 

2) I don't know how many times I've heard, "I know he could live on campus, but I would hate for him to miss out on the social experience of living in the dorms." So people add $50-100k to their loan package. If you can afford it, fine, but people shouldn't cry about the cost of education when there are some really obvious areas that can be cut back in many situations.

 

In WA, most people can get a decent education at public colleges for under $50k. Working while one is in school can cut that down dramatically. I'm not saying college is for everyone, but I think there are smart ways to approach the financial aspect of college that many people ignore.

[nova147]

My dad owns a water treatment company. His service people need to do some basic math and understand some basic chemistry concepts. He does not expect them to know those things when he hires them - he trains them on how to determine and interpret the test results. They also need to be able to write reports on their data. He has to train them to do that as well. He doesn't require college degrees, but he uses resumes to determine who MIGHT be a good enough candidate, despite not having a degree. If they can't write a coherent resume, he won't hire them.

 

That being said, he still has trouble with employees being under-educated and difficult to train. It's a great frustration for him.

 

I'm pondering education now. Our schools are failing their students, and consequently failing to provide a competent workforce. Obviously, throwing government money and government mandates at schools has not helped. Could employer led actions help? Could employers help design high school programs in order to meet their expectations for future employees? Not job specific training, but the general concepts employees need, like basic writing and math skills. Can we make those standards graduation requirements? Maybe private action would be more effective than public action has been.

 

I'm trying to be optimistic about it, but it really seems somewhat hopeless to me.

[mom@shiloh]

I don't have time to read this whole thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating. I also don't have time to edit myself much, so just throwing out a few things here:

 

My dh is a college professor and the quality of the student has gone down dramatically in the last ten years. Either people are going to college who shouldn't be (it's fine that not everybody is college "material") or the quality of pre-college education is failing to prepare them for college classes. So, what do you do? You can't fail your whole class. Do you dumb-down to meet the students? A college education is becoming what a high school education used to be.

 

Most colleges know that they're in trouble, but the "monster" turns very slowly, in other words, change is hard.

 

College graduates with a debt load that they cannot possibly pay back are going to be a HUGE problem and should never have happened in the first place. Hellloooo, parents?

 

Fifteen years ago we encouraged our older children to go to college and to live on campus. Now we encourage our younger children to consider other avenues and to live at home if they do go to college.

[justasque]

“As an 18-year-old, it sounded like a good fit to me, and the school really sold it,†said Ms. Griffith, a marketing major. “I knew a private school would cost a lot of money. But when I graduate, I’m going to owe like $900 a month. No one told me that.â€

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/business/student-loans-weighing-down-a-generation-with-heavy-debt.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

 

That right there is the problem. I see quotes like that over and over in articles like this. Why did the student expect others to give her this information, rather than seeking it out herself? Why did this student not do at least a rough calculation as to how much she would be paying back per month? Why did her parents not do that calculation? Expected income for a job in one's major (conservatively estimated), income if one ends up working at Starbucks (just in case, 'cause markets change), expected expenses as a college grad (will you live with parents? get an apartment? need a car?), expected loan payments. Running those numbers will help you determine if the debt you're taking on is worth it for the degree you're seeking. College-bound students should be capable of this kind of math. I know that sometimes things change, and people end up with problems they could not have been expected to anticipate. That's fine. But so many times I see quotes in these articles from people who don't seem to have even run the numbers before taking on debt. :confused:

[Night Elf]

Of course this would result in more of a "trade school" approach, but what is wrong with that?

 

I feel there is a negative view of a trade school certificate/degree. It's like the place where the kids who aren't smart enough for college go to so they can get a job that is a step higher than flipping burgers.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying trade school is bad. We're looking at the trade school as a possibility for dd19 and perhaps ds15 when the time comes. But I do worry about it. If they are in a job competition with students from junior or 4-yr colleges, they may lose out.

 

All of this is sitting so heavily on my shoulders right now because my family is smack dab in the middle of it. Dd19 needs to do something right now. Ds15 has just finished his sophmore year and I'd like to start making a plan for post high school. Neither my dd19 nor ds15 have any interest that pulls them into a career. They seem to be prime for just getting trained to do a specific job and get on with life.

[Beth in SW WA]

:lurk5:

 

 

[FaithManor]

My dad owns a water treatment company. His service people need to do some basic math and understand some basic chemistry concepts. He does not expect them to know those things when he hires them - he trains them on how to determine and interpret the test results. They also need to be able to write reports on their data. He has to train them to do that as well. He doesn't require college degrees, but he uses resumes to determine who MIGHT be a good enough candidate, despite not having a degree. If they can't write a coherent resume, he won't hire them.

 

That being said, he still has trouble with employees being under-educated and difficult to train. It's a great frustration for him.

 

I'm pondering education now. Our schools are failing their students, and consequently failing to provide a competent workforce. Obviously, throwing government money and government mandates at schools has not helped. Could employer led actions help? Could employers help design high school programs in order to meet their expectations for future employees? Not job specific training, but the general concepts employees need, like basic writing and math skills. Can we make those standards graduation requirements? Maybe private action would be more effective than public action has been.

 

I'm trying to be optimistic about it, but it really seems somewhat hopeless to me.

 

My dad, a business owner, has often said he wished there was a high school exit exam that was not a bubble test...something along the lines of those 8th grade one-room school house exams that students used to take.

 

So, the student wouldn't be able to study for a specific format, or learn the skills to guess between two plausible answers, etc. They'd have to absolutely know the right answer and they would have demonstrate specific skills. His idea was word problems, basic math through pre-algebra with some simple algebra 1 and pre-geometry such as remembering and demonstrating the formula for finding area of squares and triangles, volumes of cubes, etc. The student would have to write an essay, a business letter, and do paragraph summaries of a couple of science reading passages. They would do some very basic logic problems, have to us D=RT for a variety of story problems and edit a couple of passages with multiple grammatical errors. He'd be thrilled to hire a high school graduate who can do those things.

 

He even put together his own test that potential job-seekers would have to pass with a 75%. It covered working with fractions, decimals, percents, some metric but not difficult problems at all, a few logic problems - the kind one might find in the Mindbenders books A & B, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division with no use of a calculator, a couple of very basic algebra problems such as a VERY easy linear system that could be solved in two shakes of a lamb's tale by either staring at it for a couple of minutes and trying to solve it with a couple of logical guesses, or simple subsitution of one equation into the other - no fractions, no percents, no improper fractions or mixed numbers as answers, no big numbers, and then he added two pamphlets about fireplaces he actually sells in his business that are NOT technical and only for customer use and asks the potential employee to write a 4-5 sentence paragraph summarizing the content of the passage, a couple of charts and graphs answer a few questions about, and a short "Why do you think you would be an asset to my business?" writing prompt that did not require an essay response...just some simple sentences.

 

There were approximately 30 questions plus the last writing prompt. They could have up to three hrs. to take the exam. So far, most of the local high school grads from our local school district have walked away from the table because "it's too hard." Three completed it that first year and only one of those three came close to the 75% with a 72%.

 

It was such a pain to administer the test and listen to all of the whining and moaning about it, that he gave up and now requires two years of college and the release of the college transcript plus a personal reference from a college professor in order to begin the application process. The last time he had a position open, he took in 50 applications. Only one even came close to being employable and dad provides all of the on-the-job training necessary to become successful as a heating system technician. Thankfully, that applicant turned out to be a real FIND and dad has financed further licensing and vocational training for him. With any luck, he'll take over the business someday so dad can retire.

 

It's a sad, sad world. Bubble testing is not a skill. There needs to be other means of evaluating knowledge and skill level.

 

DD's accredited paramedic program requires new students to complete an entrance exam...similar to the one above although there is definitely more emphasis on a basic knowledge of the metric system. When she entered the program, 34 high school graduates - some were adults that had recently lost their jobs and were re-training for something new so ages 18-35/36 seemed average - sat the exam. Only 12 passed with the necessary 80% and gained entrance. It was not a difficult exam. It did require one to think and perform math operations through pre-algebra, read on a high school level, and write on a very basic level.

 

 

Faith

[Night Elf]

College graduates with a debt load that they cannot possibly pay back are going to be a HUGE problem and should never have happened in the first place. Hellloooo, parents?

 

I'm sorry, can you expand on this question? It seems like you're saying that parents need to assume the financial responsibility of kids going to college. Some families can't afford it anymore than the students can. Do the parents go into debt for their kids, or do the kids go into debt for their future? Or do children of families without money get told they can't go to college? (My mom didn't encourage college for me because "we aren't that kind of people.")

[justasque]

I'm sorry, can you expand on this question? It seems like you're saying that parents need to assume the financial responsibility of kids going to college. Some families can't afford it anymore than the students can. Do the parents go into debt for their kids, or do the kids go into debt for their future? Or do children of families without money get told they can't go to college? (My mom didn't encourage college for me because "we aren't that kind of people.")

 

The parents help their children understand the debt they're taking on, run the numbers with them, investigate a variety of college options, do the homework as to likelihood of a job upon graduation, seek out mentors to advise the student, etc. You know, parenting. My parents are still helping me this way. No one should take on debt and not understand how much per month, and for how long, they will be paying back. :tongue_smilie: