The coming meltdown in college education..

[mom@shiloh]

"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.")"

 

Absolutely, positively not. I don't think the parents need to assume the financial responsibility. However, my dh has run the numbers with several students in terms of what their debt payments will be like when they finish and no one has ever pointed that out to them before. First of all, I think that parents have a responsibility to educate their kids about what paying off loans will look like when they're finished. Secondly, I think college financial aid offices should do that as well, but only because parents haven't (and should).

 

I also think it is a hugely good idea for kids to work for a year or two, or three after high school to help them decide what to do. Very few 18 yo's have a clue about how they'd like to spend the rest of their lives.

[butterflymommy]

 

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

 

Because the loans are there to be taken. The same exact thing happened with real estate. Sellers asked what people could borrow.

 

Except with college you're dealing with a far more gullible crowd-- young people who have never managed money and parents who feel obligated to provide a college education no matter what the cost. It is very difficult-- if not impossible-- to say "no" to your child's future (or what you are being sold as your child's future).

 

I fear the same thing will take place with health insurance but replace loans with "subsidies." The insurers will charge as much as possible in addition to whatever subsidies will be provided (under obamacare).

 

I hope the market really does respond with cheaper alternatives as the blog entry suggests. Something like straighterline.com ... because eventually something has to give.

[Home'scool]

Yes, parents should "parent" their kids though the college process. Or the process of finding options if college is not for the student.

 

But a lot of parents don't. Mine didn't. I applied and decided on my college while my mother was away in Florida with my new stepfather. I was a senior in high school and she left me to live alone in our house for 3 months. The first time I saw the campus was the day I moved into my dorm.

 

Because this was not the first, nor last, poor parenting decision she made I was completely unprepared for choosing a college. I also had no understanding about the college loans that I would be taking on. Bad parents raise children who have a sink or swim mentality and are usually just barely getting by on their wits because they have to figure everything out as they go along.

 

I received my BS in Marketing in 1987. It has helped, in every single job that I have ever held, marketing or not, that I have my degree. So although I do regret that I never had the opportunity to really explore what I should major in, and paid off a lot more in student loans then I ever expected, I have never regretted getting a degree.

[Night Elf]

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:

 

Ah. Well, my mom is 70 and still doesn't seem to understand how to figure that all out. She doesn't see any problem with incurring debt and paying minimum payments per month regardless of the size of the debt. I guess I can see a connection between education and non-education debt. I've heard that many Americans live on credit cards, so adding in educational debt is seen as a natural part of being able to become a self-supporting person.

 

I insisted my dd19 take a Consumer Math class during high school and my other 2 will do the same. Even I learned a great deal about finances from that course.

[Hannah C.]

I went to a college which requires *ALL* of its undergraduates to take 2 years of core classes - including theology, history, philosophy, English (2 years of reading classics and writing about them - remedial classes were on top of this if they were needed), math, science, politics, economics, a foreign language, a "fine arts" type class, and I feel like I may be forgetting something. This core curriculum taught me how to think, and I got so much out of it - even the philosophy classes! So, I think general education requirements can be a very good thing if done right. I do think that PE and computer classes tend to be useless.

 

I don't know if there is a tool to estimate future monthly loan payments. I never heard of one when I was in college - I found out what my loan payments would be sometime around graduation. I'm on the standard schedule - I could apply for other loan payment methods, like the one which caps your payments at a certain percent of your income. I'm not sure how they figure out how much I should pay per month, actually.

[J-rap]

 

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!

 

A lot of great points here! I think though I would say that the reason doctors, lawyers, etc. need to go on to traditional university studies though is not to get a liberal arts education, but to learn the very specific information needed for their job.

 

Also, I believe that ALL people need to learn how to think, not just those going into the careers listed above.

 

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. ...So, he won't even hire a high school grad to do custodial work.

 

 

This makes me very sad and frustrated. I don't mean your dad in particular -- it sounds like he has had some bad experiences. But it is sad and frustrating that many companies adopt this attitude without reason. I know many, many outstanding high school graduates that would be great employees. My own son is an example of this. He went to college for one year, and then decided -- on his own -- that it was a waste of money for what he wanted to do. (He is in the film industry.) He was a 4.0 student in high school, he studied -- on his own -- for 5 AP exams in his senior year and got top scores in all of them, got top scores in the SAT, and since then, has self-educated himself. He has written grants, done his own fund-raising, been awarded several art grants, written (and is producing) screenplays, learned a second language fluently. But, he is only a high school graduate, so people like your father wouldn't even hire him to do custodial work. (Again Faith -- I'm really not picking on your dad! I do understand your point!)

 

This is partly why so many high school graduates are so afraid to NOT go to college, even though it might not be necessary for what they want to do.

 

One other thought: Doesn't the education system in Europe include a 5th year of high school, so that when they go on to a university, it's only three years and focuses specifically on the degree rather than liberal arts? Perhaps in our system we should include a 5th year of high school too, that ONLY involves learning to articulate your thoughts clearly (aloud and/or written), and to learn how to think in a logical way. Then after that, they can choose to go to a university, go to a technical school or a 1-year certificate school, or directly to a job.

[nova147]

A lot of great points here! I think though I would say that the reason doctors, lawyers, etc. need to go on to traditional university studies though is not to get a liberal arts education, but to learn the very specific information needed for their job.

 

Also, I believe that ALL people need to learn how to think, not just those going into the careers listed above.

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't mean to imply that only professionals need to learn to think. I also think everyone needs to learn to think. But college costs too much for THAT to be the place we learn. I don't know the solution to that problem, but as the system stands, it's just not practical.

 

I actually have a BA, but I'm not sure I really learned to think there. My parents were big on teaching us to think, but I'm still learning this skill. I didn't get a great education in high school or college, despite my school district being well rated and my college being expensive (and well rated). I got a good education, but not a great one.

[FaithManor]

A lot of great points here! I think though I would say that the reason doctors, lawyers, etc. need to go on to traditional university studies though is not to get a liberal arts education, but to learn the very specific information needed for their job.

 

Also, I believe that ALL people need to learn how to think, not just those going into the careers listed above.

 

 

 

This makes me very sad and frustrated. I don't mean your dad in particular -- it sounds like he has had some bad experiences. But it is sad and frustrating that many companies adopt this attitude without reason. I know many, many outstanding high school graduates that would be great employees. My own son is an example of this. He went to college for one year, and then decided -- on his own -- that it was a waste of money for what he wanted to do. (He is in the film industry.) He was a 4.0 student in high school, he studied -- on his own -- for 5 AP exams in his senior year and got top scores in all of them, got top scores in the SAT, and since then, has self-educated himself. He has written grants, done his own fund-raising, been awarded several art grants, written (and is producing) screenplays, learned a second language fluently. But, he is only a high school graduate, so people like your father wouldn't even hire him to do custodial work. (Again Faith -- I'm really not picking on your dad! I do understand your point!)

 

This is partly why so many high school graduates are so afraid to NOT go to college, even though it might not be necessary for what they want to do.

 

One other thought: Doesn't the education system in Europe include a 5th year of high school, so that when they go on to a university, it's only three years and focuses specifically on the degree rather than liberal arts? Perhaps in our system we should include a 5th year of high school too, that ONLY involves learning to articulate your thoughts clearly (aloud and/or written), and to learn how to think in a logical way. Then after that, they can choose to go to a university, go to a technical school or a 1-year certificate school, or directly to a job.

 

I understand what you are saying. This is local...local schools. I'm not making generalization to all high schools. It is my dad's problem, in this county, because of the dumbing down of the education here and it's why he can't hire a high school grad with no post-high school education to do anything in his business. If the local schools would pull their acts together and make a high school diploma worth the paper it's printed on, he'd be able to change his policies. I know you aren't picking on my dad. It's just a sad statement of what is happening locally.

 

The kids who do well, the ones like your son, "Can't get out of Dodge" fast enough. They take their abilities and run! They go to MSU, U of M, Michigan Tech, etc. and don't look back. They don't want to be employed locally because of the economic climate and so the ones that would make good employees take themselves out of the possibility pool. That leaves dad having to require two years of college from the ones that didn't move on in order to have any chance of being able to hire a solid employee. It really is just that bad here and this isn't the only place in the nation like that. Unfortunately, there are many places where grade inflation, dumbing down of curriculum, etc. is so rampant that local employers cannot trust a high school diploma to mean anything. We are failing our kids in the nation in many areas, but certainly not all, of the country. Now, there are some exceptions...dad has a list of Michigan high schools in his desk that are doing a decent job. If he happened across one of those 18 year olds, yes they would get to apply and be seriously considered. However, it is doubtful that kids from these schools are going to be headed this way looking for jobs in a county with a 19% unemployment rate!

 

Sad, sad, sad....

 

Faith

[Bluegoat]

I actually tend to think it will be a good thing if it does burst.

 

Universities went off the rails when government decided, rather arbitrarily, to send as many people as possible there, and when we began to confuse university education with vocational preparation.

[desiraejb]

I graduated HS in 99 and went to college, eventually finishing my 4-year degree 6 years later. In high school our counselors and teachers 'sold' us and our parents on the merits of a college degree, usually with the charts showing how much more salary we'd make. Then, in college, our professors and advisors were always talking about how we would be managing the rest of the world that didnt get a degree. I caught on in my senior year of college when I was already managing a few people in a small IT department and making their 5-year IT purchasing plan for budgeting. When I was helping my supervisor hire people, we weren't looking for a degree or certification near as much as we were looking for someone who could properly fill out an application, write a resume that made sense and had some experience. At my university, the professors made it sound like we'd walk out the door and find the management job we were trained for...reality is an entry-level job with crummy hours and bad pay.

 

I think in my parents generation, the degree made sense for a better career. There were fewer people with one, so it made sense that they were paid more. For my generation, I feel the job market is over-saturated with college-educated applicants. So, the degree that was supposed to set us apart from everyone else doesn't cut it anymore; we need experience, too. Or we have to start at the very bottom and work our way up with everyone else. Does that make sense? Granted, my degree is a Business degree, so I speak specifically about that field.

 

DH and I have decided we won't push our kids to go to college unless they know exactly what they want to study and it will pay off in the end (like a pharmacist, doctor, etc). We see so many of our peers begin college, waste years and so much money, only to never finish.

[Bluegoat]

I'd just add with regard to why professions were given a liberal arts education first: the idea was that doctors, lawyers, military officers, legislators, and so on were, by nature of their jobs, making serious decisions not only about themselves but about other people. Ethical questions in particular are going to occur in those kinds of jobs. It is a great thing for anyone to have some background in philosophy and history and literature, but for people who hold other's lives in their hands to some degree, it was felt to be a requirement. Even some businesses and banks and other private institutions often wanted those same qualities and so looked for those kinds of education.

 

Which is why those people did undergarduate degrees before their professional training, and they did them at universities whose purpose was to do that kind of thinking. Professional schools often were located and associated with universities to take advantage of their resources. But those undergraduate degrees were never understood to be vocational training in the normal sense and the purpose of the university was never meant to be vocational training.

[justasque]

I went to a college which requires *ALL* of its undergraduates to take 2 years of core classes...

 

I would add that colleges vary widely on what is required for various majors - from this kind of serious emphasis on core classes to a much more flexible set of requirements. For me, it was part of what we asked when looking at schools - if my student chooses this major, what classes will he be taking during his 4/5 years? Even with the same major, different programs can be quite different. And many times students have some choices within the core framework - do they want to beef up their writing skills, or their computer skills, or their math skills? So for example to fill an arts requirement, perhaps a theater class would help with public speaking/presentations, rather than a pottery class that would be fun but have less application to their career goals. There are pros and cons to core requirements, and that is something to consider when choosing a school/major.

 

I don't know if there is a tool to estimate future monthly loan payments. I never heard of one when I was in college ...

 

I actually had a job writing one for an Ivy's med school, way back before kids. The financial aid office wanted it so they could better advise/counsel their students about taking on debt. They were concerned about students not fully understanding the substantial debt they were taking on. No clue if this is still done there.

[Rosie_0801]

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

The American high school system is much more general than ours so I can't understand why that needs to be enforced right into college too. Theoretically, you are all well rounded already. (As far as I know, Australians aren't considered the dunces of the world. ;) )

 

If you graduate high school and can't write or do basic arithmetic, you shouldn't be able to get into university. We have a lot of options for bridging to uni for people who don't have the ability to get in, but those things don't count as part of a degree! I think it would be ideal for high school to be run on the American system of breadth, though with the UK's way of doing sciences and maths concurrently, with university the place for specialising. If someone wants a liberal arts degree, they can do one. I just don't think they should have to do half of one in order to do something else. For breadth here, people can take electives from a prescribed list and different degrees allow greater or lesser variation so you choose one accordingly. You can double major and anyone in any degree can do a language diploma concurrently (assuming they can handle the workload, of course.)

 

Rosie

Edited May 16, 2012 by Rosie_0801

[jenangelcat]

When you say college do you all mean university? Here in Canada university is expensive but college degrees or certificates are inexpensive and often a lot more practical.

 

I can spend several tens of thousands on the same useless BA at university that everyone else is getting or I can go to college for a 2 year program for 4-10k and get an education in something that's actually going to give me a good paying job (ultrasound tech, paramedic, plumber etc).

 

Skilled trades and health care degrees that give financial security without a huge debt is what we're promoting with our kids.

[mommymilkies]

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. But many students are NOT ready. Even honors graduates.

[nova147]

When you say college do you all mean university? Here in Canada university is expensive but college degrees or certificates are inexpensive and often a lot more practical.

 

I can spend several tens of thousands on the same useless BA at university that everyone else is getting or I can go to college for a 2 year program for 4-10k and get an education in something that's actually going to give me a good paying job (ultrasound tech, paramedic, plumber etc).

 

Skilled trades and health care degrees that give financial security without a huge debt is what we're promoting with our kids.

 

In the US, college and university are often used interchangeably. Technically, the difference is a university offers masters and/or doctoral degrees, and colleges only offer bachelors degrees. (I think. :D)

[Bluegoat]

When you say college do you all mean university? Here in Canada university is expensive but college degrees or certificates are inexpensive and often a lot more practical.

 

I can spend several tens of thousands on the same useless BA at university that everyone else is getting or I can go to college for a 2 year program for 4-10k and get an education in something that's actually going to give me a good paying job (ultrasound tech, paramedic, plumber etc).

 

Skilled trades and health care degrees that give financial security without a huge debt is what we're promoting with our kids.

 

Yes, they mean university. What we call a community college also seems to mean something different there.

[Maverick_Mom]

I saw this article this morning and thought it was a very insightful way of looking at the situation.

 

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.

 

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's close enough, IMHO.

 

You spend the money with a long-term, not a short-term, goal in mind. With college, the goal is to get a job that will pay back not just your college costs but then some (gainful employment, a salary you can live on, benefits, etc.). College itself* is not the goal -- what it can "get" you (you hope) is the goal. If you're into house-flipping, the goal is to make a sale that will pay back not just the cost of buying the house but then some. Owning the house itself is not the goal -- what it can "get" you (you hope) is the goal.

 

In both cases you are attempting to trade your investment (college tuition or the money you paid for the house) for the opportunity to recoup that investment and (you hope) make a profit. The form of the trade is different (going to work for someone who likes your credentials vs. selling your house to someone who likes its credentials), but the goal is the same.

 

* -- this isn't universally true, though. There are still people who attend college for the educational experience itself. I don't personally know any, LOL, but I think if money is no object and you're not incurring debt or at least you're not worried about paying it off, you're probably not giving a lot of thought to how you're going to recoup your investment. But I do think that more and more, college is an investment of time and money that is made with the idea that it will accomplish something in addition to broadening your mind.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Maverick_Mom

[PollyOR]

And this:

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

 

I enjoyed watching this. Thanks!

[Audrey]

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.

 

To the bolded: no they won't lose out. Trades are specific courses, usually apprenticeship programs, leading to specific certifications in specific jobs. A 4-yr college degree holder will be ZERO competition.

 

Also, I realize that many people look down on the trades, but the fact of the matter is that we are sorely needing qualified tradesmen in nearly every trade. When you finish your course and apprenticeship and get your certification, you are highly likely to get a job doing what you trained to do. A 4-yr degree holder? Ha! Big fat load of luck to those suckers in getting a job in the field they actually studied.

 

I say this and I have a BA, MA, and Ph.D. They were only useful for an academic position. The rest of the working world couldn't care less. While I still appreciate the education I got. It was not worth it. I am encouraging my son to explore his apprentice-related talents, so he can actually get a good job, paying good money, not working for chump-change wages.

 

As far as him being well educated? Well, that is why I am homeschooling with the goal of a quality education and building the passion and ability for life-long learning. An institution is not required to produce great and varied intellect.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Audrey

[Audrey]

When you say college do you all mean university? Here in Canada university is expensive but college degrees or certificates are inexpensive and often a lot more practical.

 

I can spend several tens of thousands on the same useless BA at university that everyone else is getting or I can go to college for a 2 year program for 4-10k and get an education in something that's actually going to give me a good paying job (ultrasound tech, paramedic, plumber etc).

 

Skilled trades and health care degrees that give financial security without a huge debt is what we're promoting with our kids.

 

 

:thumbup: We're doing the same thing, too!

[PrairieSong]

Our middle dd will be a college senior in the fall, and will be going one extra semester because she changed majors. She attends a local state university and lives at home. She has a $2000 per semester academic scholarship and pays for most of the rest of her educational expenses with her earnings from her part time and summer jobs. We do help her, but most of that help comes from a fund we started when she was a baby. She will probably graduate with no debt.

 

I am so sorry that, apparently, this is so rare these days. I read much of this thread and the "cautionary tale" thread and I am disturbed, and surprised at how much some state schools cost. Ours is under $170 per credit hour. I'm guessing this must be on the low side.

[Ali in OR]

A couple of thoughts:

 

George Will wrote an interesting article several years ago about why you now have to get an expensive college education for a job that shouldn't require one. As I recall, his point was that degrees became necessary when it became illegal to use intelligence tests for job applicants (I think because they were discriminatory). So instead of being able to prove that you have what it takes to do a particular job, you now have to spend thousands of dollars for a degree that may not really be needed.

 

Second thought--regarding vocational schools. It's interesting to watch the experiences of our friends' children who are college age and beyond. In one newly blended family, the husband's dd went off to college for a 4-year degree and teaching credential. The wife's dd who was the same year wasn't sure what she wanted to do. She spent some time in beauty school, but realized that wasn't going to have benefits or the stability she wanted. So she switched over to the community college and in two years became a Certified Nursing Assistant. She was hired immediately out of school to work in a great OB/Gyn group. Her benefits are better than her step dad's. And meanwhile her step-sister with the teaching degree is working in a furniture store because our state's revenues are still way down and districts have less money every year. No jobs for new teachers. This young girl who became a CNA just impresses me with how she has launched herself while so many of her college-educated peers can't get jobs in their fields and/or can't even get into graduate programs because there are so many applicants now.

 

It's frustrating to me that a college education is not as likely to be the path to success that it used to be. I graduated with a teaching degree and everyone in our program was able to find a teaching position after graduation; I hate thinking about all of the young graduates today who have a passion for education and no easy way into that career. Or the kids who have struggled through difficult classes to get an engineering degree and don't realize that so many of those jobs are disappearing from the U.S. because foreign engineers are cheaper. I'm a low-risk, non-entrepeneurial type of person, and I want there to be a path where if you put it in the work, you will be rewarded with some measure of success--at least a job in your field that pays a living wage and has benefits. It's definitely a lot harder for today's young people than it was for my generation.

[Bang!Zoom!]

Harvard Debt Paid Off

 

Article and link to a blog which chronicles the paying off of student loans in a pretty drastic fashion.

[Aelwydd]

The college bubble will burst because 1) prices are out-pacing the public's ability to purchase it, and 2) because the product, itself, is becoming more devalued.

 

The reasons for devaluation are twofold. The first reason is that there is a growing anti-intellectual fervor among more and more Americans, that snidely proclaims subjectivism to be superior to objectivity and the ideals of the Enlightenment. It's become pervasive enough that the more educated and erudite a person is, the more likely he or she is to be accused of "elitism" or, even a worse fate, consigned to the ranks of "liberalism."

 

Colleges and universities, far from opposing or rejecting these attitudes, have cultivated and even embraced them in many campuses. University used to be the bastion of scholarly thought; now, it is more likely to be a money making machine for corporations and industries, who partner with these schools for research and to fund departments, so that more and more, degrees are simply advanced company training, at the cost of the student (and society at a large). American universities, which are often kept just this side of financial starvation by state and federal sources, must rely on revenue generated by their sports brand, and a consequence of that fact is the academic ability of athletes that are given scholarships is frequently questionable.

 

I hold a Bachelor of Science from a state university. My experience was that the general ed courses built into my degree provided a basic, spotty coverage of typical liberal arts topics: history, art, political science, social science, foreign language, etc. I learned some new information, but it was a skimming of the surface. My science and math courses were more rigorous, and really challenging and interesting. My core/ specialization courses were a conglomeration of some theory, with a lot of industry-specific standards, so as to assure we could take and pass national certification tests in our field. It was always taught with a business perspective on it, with much less emphasis put on the science/research side, which is what I really craved.

 

More and more, research and in-depth analysis is the purview of graduate school, and even that is still tilted towards business/industry.

 

A lot of folks will say that's a good thing, but I don't. I don't agree that everyone should go to university. I believe university should return to what it does best--scholarly instruction of the whole individual. Instead, it has become a cookie-cutter factory, providing mediocre graduates that are trained how to think according to other people's viewpoints. I look at my B.S. diploma more as a certificate of attendance for the corporate world, than as evidence of completion of a true liberal arts education.

 

The second reason I mentioned at the beginning, that education is becoming devalued, is directly tied to everything I've just spelled out. Because college education is less and less frequently the purview of a truly rigorously trained and tested, intellectual community, those who hold degrees are not as capable, not as educated, as those that graduated from a system that used to hold students to much higher standards.

 

I cannot tell you how appalled, absolutely flabbergasted, I was as a college senior reading and responding to my peers' writing. Out of a class of 25 students, I would put maybe 5 students at a collegiate level of writing, and maybe 5 more at a competent, high-school level. These were students who would be graduating in a semester or two, and pursuing work with companies as a college graduate--and who still couldn't reliably capitalize correctly, spell, write complete, non-fragmented sentences, much less argue their case in a coherent fashion.

 

When these students graduate, and then enter the working world, their co-workers, clients, and management see the poor quality of their writing, their poor critical thinking skills, and their general ignorance about the world at large. These all represent deficits in their education, and those deficits result in college graduates that are not as appealing, or impressive as a $50,000+, 4 year+, educational venture would seem to suggest. Now multiply that phenomenon thousands of times over, and spread it about the working world, and it's no mystery why a college education just doesn't mean what it used to.

 

I think university should be reserved for those who are truly inclined and mentally capable of rigorous study, and not just for any person who has an inclination to go. I think trades and junior colleges and schools should be expanded, and emphasized. There are many jobs that have a history of being taught originally as a trade; accounting, for example. Or, just business principles, in general. Why is it one needs to have an M.B.A. anymore to move up in a company? Our work force is littered with these degrees, and they are increasingly worth little more than the resume paper they get printed on, and subsequently thrown into the waste bin.

 

Telling every child that they should or must go to four-year university is detrimental to both the university system, to our economic system, and to our work force.

[creekland]

The reasons for devaluation are twofold. The first reason is that there is a growing anti-intellectual fervor among more and more Americans, that snidely proclaims subjectivism to be superior to objectivity and the ideals of the Enlightenment. It's become pervasive enough that the more educated and erudite a person is, the more likely he or she is to be accused of "elitism" or, even a worse fate, consigned to the ranks of "liberalism."

 

Apparently, we live in vastly different areas. I have not seen this at all. I see adults who never got their college degrees more or less insisting that their children get them so they aren't held back as they have been. I see adults returning to college to break barriers and advance. I haven't heard anyone say anything bad about getting a degree - even if they don't choose it for themselves. Only on here do I read about that mentality. IRL, I haven't seen it.

 

More and more, research and in-depth analysis is the purview of graduate school, and even that is still tilted towards business/industry.

 

I don't see this either. When I went to U (many moons ago), only grad students and a few selected seniors could participate in research. Now, many schools actively promote real research to undergrads. Middle son will be attending a school where 77% of the undergrads choose to participate in research. I see a change, but it's the exact opposite of what you see. Maybe it's the caliber of the school that makes the difference. But, even my Alma mater has many undergrads doing research now and they didn't then.

 

I cannot tell you how appalled, absolutely flabbergasted, I was as a college senior reading and responding to my peers' writing. Out of a class of 25 students, I would put maybe 5 students at a collegiate level of writing, and maybe 5 more at a competent, high-school level. These were students who would be graduating in a semester or two, and pursuing work with companies as a college graduate--and who still couldn't reliably capitalize correctly, spell, write complete, non-fragmented sentences, much less argue their case in a coherent fashion.

 

When these students graduate, and then enter the working world, their co-workers, clients, and management see the poor quality of their writing, their poor critical thinking skills, and their general ignorance about the world at large. These all represent deficits in their education, and those deficits result in college graduates that are not as appealing, or impressive as a $50,000+, 4 year+, educational venture would seem to suggest. Now multiply that phenomenon thousands of times over, and spread it about the working world, and it's no mystery why a college education just doesn't mean what it used to.

 

First, start comparing what you see to the local high school grad and I suspect you'll see a big difference. ;) Second, I do think the caliber of the school makes a difference. I see where our higher grads and lower grads go. A college can't change everything.

 

Telling every child that they should or must go to four-year university is detrimental to both the university system, to our economic system, and to our work force.

 

:iagree: Choose the path based upon the student, don't force a student into a path.

[Aelwydd]

Apparently, we live in vastly different areas. I have not seen this at all. I see adults who never got their college degrees more or less insisting that their children get them so they aren't held back as they have been. I see adults returning to college to break barriers and advance. I haven't heard anyone say anything bad about getting a degree - even if they don't choose it for themselves. Only on here do I read about that mentality. IRL, I haven't seen it.

 

I understand what you mean about coming here and reading negative opinions about college. What I am saying, is that these opinions are not really new, nor are they rare. And that these opinions about higher level education, which traditionally and classically, was always based upon Enlightenment ideals and the scientific method and process, have been watered down by the influx of students who come from traditions that do not value these ideals. When you have a big enough proportion of any body, whether it's an industry or a field, or whatever, that have a certain viewpoint, it causes a sea change in the larger group. That's what I see in university in the last 40 to 60 years.

 

I'm saying that university has become more tenable option to the public at large, because it has curbed its more objectionable intellectual pursuits. Practicality reigns, and so does subjectivism. You see greater numbers of people going to college. I see colleges and universities lowering academic standards in order to coax greater numbers of students, providing a less scholarly education in exchange for a more practical education greatly reduced in scope.

 

 

I don't see this either. When I went to U (many moons ago), only grad students and a few selected seniors could participate in research. Now, many schools actively promote real research to undergrads. Middle son will be attending a school where 77% of the undergrads choose to participate in research. I see a change, but it's the exact opposite of what you see. Maybe it's the caliber of the school that makes the difference. But, even my Alma mater has many undergrads doing research now and they didn't then.

Some departments in some schools promote research at that level. A lot of research opportunities, however, are dependent upon corporate sponsorship for necessary monies, so that really narrows the scope. Research is available, but only in some directions, and with some departments. It's not just the calibre of the school--it's the calibre of the department. University of NC at Chapel Hill, for example has extraordinary research opportunities, but it's also in a state that is very pro-education, and the school itself, is quite selective, AND, it also has numerous partnerships with various corporations.

 

A lot of schools do not have that combination, and frankly, research is not emphasized.

 

 

First, start comparing what you see to the local high school grad and I suspect you'll see a big difference. ;) Second, I do think the caliber of the school makes a difference. I see where our higher grads and lower grads go. A college can't change everything.

I see both every day, and I see little difference in ability to write. My dh has some college, but no degree. He had managers in his office with graduate degrees who resented the hell out of him because he wrote better, consistently, than any of them. IMO, college is not the place to learn writing; high school is. College and university has become the dumping grounds for the poor quality both public and private school graduates all over. College instructors are now tasked with teaching their subject and teaching remedial English, math, history, etc., because their students never received a good quality education.

 

Oh--and that's another thing. We are paying increasingly higher amounts of money for instruction that often doesn't even come from professors, but from "Associate professors," "adjunct faculty," and so forth. Schools cannot afford full-time professors, who used to be able to devote more time to their own research. Now, if they can do research, they assign teaching to their grad students, and the rest of the instructors end up taking on several classes and getting buried under the work load. Very little time for ground-breaking research when you are having proof-read 75 papers from students who can barely write on the 7th grade level.

 

So how are you going to get the same high quality college education as someone did even a generation ago? You can't--unless you are able to get into one of the few elite schools out there that still have the funding to actually employ regular, permanent professors, and to fund research. I would say that those institutions designated "high-research" are more likely to fall into the second category, but not always.

 

 

:iagree: Choose the path based upon the student, don't force a student into a path.

Yes, and if the student chooses university, that standard should be very high, for it to mean anything.

[creekland]

I understand what you mean about coming here and reading negative opinions about college. What I am saying, is that these opinions are not really new, nor are they rare. And that these opinions about higher level education, which traditionally and classically, was always based upon Enlightenment ideals and the scientific method and process, have been watered down by the influx of students who come from traditions that do not value these ideals. When you have a big enough proportion of any body, whether it's an industry or a field, or whatever, that have a certain viewpoint, it causes a sea change in the larger group. That's what I see in university in the last 40 to 60 years.

 

I'm saying that university has become more tenable option to the public at large, because it has curbed its more objectionable intellectual pursuits. Practicality reigns, and so does subjectivism. You see greater numbers of people going to college. I see colleges and universities lowering academic standards in order to coax greater numbers of students, providing a less scholarly education in exchange for a more practical education greatly reduced in scope.

 

 

Some departments in some schools promote research at that level. A lot of research opportunities, however, are dependent upon corporate sponsorship for necessary monies, so that really narrows the scope. Research is available, but only in some directions, and with some departments. It's not just the calibre of the school--it's the calibre of the department. University of NC at Chapel Hill, for example has extraordinary research opportunities, but it's also in a state that is very pro-education, and the school itself, is quite selective, AND, it also has numerous partnerships with various corporations.

 

A lot of schools do not have that combination, and frankly, research is not emphasized.

 

 

I see both every day, and I see little difference in ability to write. My dh has some college, but no degree. He had managers in his office with graduate degrees who resented the hell out of him because he wrote better, consistently, than any of them. IMO, college is not the place to learn writing; high school is. College and university has become the dumping grounds for the poor quality both public and private school graduates all over. College instructors are now tasked with teaching their subject and teaching remedial English, math, history, etc., because their students never received a good quality education.

 

Oh--and that's another thing. We are paying increasingly higher amounts of money for instruction that often doesn't even come from professors, but from "Associate professors," "adjunct faculty," and so forth. Schools cannot afford full-time professors, who used to be able to devote more time to their own research. Now, if they can do research, they assign teaching to their grad students, and the rest of the instructors end up taking on several classes and getting buried under the work load. Very little time for ground-breaking research when you are having proof-read 75 papers from students who can barely write on the 7th grade level.

 

So how are you going to get the same high quality college education as someone did even a generation ago? You can't--unless you are able to get into one of the few elite schools out there that still have the funding to actually employ regular, permanent professors, and to fund research. I would say that those institutions designated "high-research" are more likely to fall into the second category, but not always.

 

 

Yes, and if the student chooses university, that standard should be very high, for it to mean anything.

 

I think I only disagree with you in the aspect that (until the end) you blanket all colleges with the same (negative) brush. College A is not equal to College B. There are some colleges that definitely have lower standards in education and students and some that have higher standards. Many times the costs are similar. It is important to do homework to figure out the best college for a student and not just go with the "local" college because "all colleges are the same." They aren't.

 

IME it never hurts to have a college (or trade school) degree UNLESS one is foolish enough to get into oodles of debt to obtain it (oodles for me generally meaning > $30,000 - more or less pending degree). That's not the same as saying everyone should get a degree, but, I'm highly biased in favor of it for most (capable) students due to the society we now live in more or less requiring them. The degree might be a 2 year or 4 year based upon what the student wants to do. Getting trade certificates is in the same category for me. Stopping at a high school degree (or less) burns a lot of bridges.

 

To find the right college (4 year) for a student, consider what they want to do (or what subjects they like more) and look for jobs using that degree/those subjects. Check with employers to see what colleges/paths they recommend for new hires. Most IME will very willingly share. Check with colleges recommended and see how many graduates get jobs in their fields (or get into grad/prof schools). Is it common? Great - you've found a place to apply to (but don't fall in love yet). Does it happen once in a while? What stats did those with success have/need? Can you equal those? Consider applying. Does it only happen in theory, but not in reality? Red flag. Have there been students who tried and failed to get there? Huge red flag.

 

Pick places to apply to and then see how the finances work out. If you know you want merit aid, double check that it's possible first from that school (not all schools offer it). If you know you need need-based aid, check to see that the school offers it (but try anyway - you never know - DON'T fall in love!). Once all financial packages are in, see where the best deal is... best education for the least cost. Then fall in love...

 

In the meantime, emphasizing both high academic quality and living an active life (in something they care about) will make your student attractive for admissions. Many are "anti-test." One might feel that way, but not "playing the game" with the tests can lead to your having to pay thousands more for college (as well as not necessarily being accepted). High test scores can sometimes lead to a very low cost college education - even from top schools. It can also mean acceptance into very nice need-based aid schools.

 

If you find a school that is good in the desired field, have high enough stats to get in, and it ends up being affordable (in spite of sticker cost), then you end up with a win on multiple fronts. You get a good education, good odds for a decent job afterward, and no ball and chain of excessive debt.

 

If you decide the "local" school is good enough or "name A" is what I want at all costs, you could easily run into horror stories (not always, but that's where they tend to come from). I see plenty of our high school students return to our area after college. For those who don't get (good) jobs, I'm seldom surprised. VERY seldom. Even in this economy. The students who do their homework and figure things out well do well. None have gone Ivy. It's not necessary for success.

 

(Remember, this isn't always starting at a 4 year school - or ending there. Fit the path to the student.)

[Aelwydd]

I think I only disagree with you in the aspect that (until the end) you blanket all colleges with the same (negative) brush.

 

It's not all colleges I am criticizing, so much as the post-secondary educational industry as a whole. Obviously, there are exceptions. I believe that our colleges and universities are merely a reflection of society at large--and as a society, we value objective, critical thinking far less than we do other traits, such as ambition, and resourceful thinking.

 

IME it never hurts to have a college (or trade school) degree UNLESS one is foolish enough to get into oodles of debt to obtain it (oodles for me generally meaning > $30,000 - more or less pending degree). That's not the same as saying everyone should get a degree, but, I'm highly biased in favor of it for most (capable) students due to the society we now live in more or less requiring them.

 

That's my point. Because we tell folks that they should go to college, college degrees have now become the default. You say that college education should be kept under 30 grand. I attended only a community college, and a state university, which also had the least expensive tuition rates in my area. And still, my debt when I graduated was 50,000, which, BTW, was a lot better than many of my fellow students. A good friend of mine went to UTA as a nurse, and she graduated with 60 grand in debt.

 

I didn't go hog wild. I never went to even one college party. I studied hard, had some scholarships, and worked my butt off. I still have that debt. I have a good paying job though, and the degree was what got me into the door in an interview. However, when my manager encouraged me last week to learn some new technologies, because he wants me to go for a leadership position, he told me point blank that a Master's degree really didn't matter. What mattered is my performance and my knowledge/skill basis.

 

So, the degree wasn't what I needed to do the job (in fact, my degree is in an entirely different field from my current job), it was just the default cred I needed (along with knowing someone that works there) to get my foot into the door. Don't get me wrong, I don't regret my degree. I'm proud of my education. But it irks me that a system exists where a company considers me better qualified to have gone into debt to get such a degree, just to have hired. If I had applied before I graduated, say a year or so previous, they wouldn't have hired me.

 

Why not? I wasn't less intelligent a year before I graduated. I wasn't less skilled. You could argue I was less informed, but who decides what level of "informed" is the standard? And what about the fact the information I received is for a different field entirely?

 

I don't think my work place should demand a college degree. I think that HS education could and should provide all the relevant information one needs to start out doing what I do. But many do not, and what's more, competition is fierce, so it all defaults to having a degree. So, now everyone is getting one.

 

It's why when I first graduated, and started applying for entry-level positions in my field, I was told point blank that Master's level, and even doctorate level candidates were competing for the same $30,000/ year job, many with years of experience in the field. College degrees just don't make you as competitive anymore. More competitive than a HS grad--yes. But, I'm arguing that HS education should become much more rigorous, and the same for junior colleges.

 

It's sort of the same principle for youth ice hockey in this region. Years ago, lots of folks realized that travel teams bring in a lot more money than just house teams. But travel teams were really for the most elite level players. However, money motivates, and soon many rinks had reduced, and even eliminated their house league teams, so that if a child wanted to play, they had to be willing to pay $2500 a season or more, plus travel expenses, plus tournament charges.

 

So, what happened? Participation fell in the sport, as a lot of families were simply priced out of the sport and went to other sports. And travel hockey really became a much more mediocre sport. Every rink was getting AA and AAA teams, but with progressively crappier play.

 

The solution to the problem is not to make travel hockey the choice for every player, rich and poor. The solution is to rebuild house leagues, make them much more competitive again, so that they would really start producing better players. Then, the cream of the crop can turn around and apply to the travel teams, because they are the best players.

 

I speak as a mom not of an elite hockey player, but of an average player that should be in a good house league. But, due to the pressure to make every team a travel team, because it brings more money and prestige to the rink and to the players, means that if my son is to have some decent competition and learning opportunities, we are pretty much constrained to having him try out for a travel team. Which he will probably make, not because he is at an elite level, but because the pickings are much slimmer, and he is on par with what now constitutes the bulk of most travel teams -- average playing ability.

 

 

 

Pick places to apply to and then see how the finances work out. If you know you want merit aid, double check that it's possible first from that school (not all schools offer it). If you know you need need-based aid, check to see that the school offers it (but try anyway - you never know - DON'T fall in love!). Once all financial packages are in, see where the best deal is... best education for the least cost. Then fall in love...

 

This is all fine and well, but I did this, plus I had some good scholarship money, and it still cost me more than I really could afford. I'm fortunate in that I'm in a job that will eventually make enough salary to justify that degree, but it's really a crap shoot as to which graduates will have such a good return.

 

For our son, we are prepping him for a rigorous college education, because we are aiming for a good school, to make it worth his while. His strengths are mathematics and science, and it happens to be the case that those colleges and universities that known for math and engineering schools tend to have better outcomes for their graduates than schools whose reputations are based upon teaching, nursing, or other "soft sciences." I just read another report on that trend the other day.

 

So, we are aiming for him to get into such a school. However, we doubt we will be staying in the US, because frankly, I think the university system, and education in general, are more rigorous in certain other places. International ratings bear this out year after year. Don't get me wrong--if he got an offer letter from some place like Rennsalaer or University of NC/ Chapel Hill, or Duke, or some place like that, we'd take a good, hard look. But most those of those places are far, far more expensive to attend than their peers in other countries, such as McGill University, or Cambridge. Ivy League level education, but for far less money than here in the U.S.

[J-rap]

I didn't mean to imply that only professionals need to learn to think. I also think everyone needs to learn to think. But college costs too much for THAT to be the place we learn. I don't know the solution to that problem, but as the system stands, it's just not practical.

 

I actually have a BA, but I'm not sure I really learned to think there. My parents were big on teaching us to think, but I'm still learning this skill. I didn't get a great education in high school or college, despite my school district being well rated and my college being expensive (and well rated). I got a good education, but not a great one.

 

I understand...and agree! It's too bad that people rely on colleges to learn to think! It is a skill that I am still learning too. That's one of the reasons I'm proposing a 5th year of high school -- like the European school system -- to learn to think in a more rational/structured way and articulate thoughts more clearly, in case that isn't being taught at home. (Although I have a feeling that adding on a 5th year of high school would not get much support. :))

 

I understand what you are saying. This is local...local schools. I'm not making generalization to all high schools. It is my dad's problem, in this county, because of the dumbing down of the education here and it's why he can't hire a high school grad with no post-high school education to do anything in his business. If the local schools would pull their acts together and make a high school diploma worth the paper it's printed on, he'd be able to change his policies. I know you aren't picking on my dad. It's just a sad statement of what is happening locally.

 

The kids who do well, the ones like your son, "Can't get out of Dodge" fast enough. They take their abilities and run! They go to MSU, U of M, Michigan Tech, etc. and don't look back. They don't want to be employed locally because of the economic climate and so the ones that would make good employees take themselves out of the possibility pool. That leaves dad having to require two years of college from the ones that didn't move on in order to have any chance of being able to hire a solid employee. It really is just that bad here and this isn't the only place in the nation like that. Unfortunately, there are many places where grade inflation, dumbing down of curriculum, etc. is so rampant that local employers cannot trust a high school diploma to mean anything. We are failing our kids in the nation in many areas, but certainly not all, of the country. Now, there are some exceptions...dad has a list of Michigan high schools in his desk that are doing a decent job. If he happened across one of those 18 year olds, yes they would get to apply and be seriously considered. However, it is doubtful that kids from these schools are going to be headed this way looking for jobs in a county with a 19% unemployment rate!

 

Sad, sad, sad....

 

Faith

 

I do understand that it's a local thing. Just a sad state of affairs all around!

[Aelwydd]

 

The kids who do well, the ones like your son, "Can't get out of Dodge" fast enough. They take their abilities and run! They go to MSU, U of M, Michigan Tech, etc. and don't look back. They don't want to be employed locally because of the economic climate and so the ones that would make good employees take themselves out of the possibility pool. That leaves dad having to require two years of college from the ones that didn't move on in order to have any chance of being able to hire a solid employee. It really is just that bad here and this isn't the only place in the nation like that. Unfortunately, there are many places where grade inflation, dumbing down of curriculum, etc. is so rampant that local employers cannot trust a high school diploma to mean anything. We are failing our kids in the nation in many areas, but certainly not all, of the country. Now, there are some exceptions...dad has a list of Michigan high schools in his desk that are doing a decent job. If he happened across one of those 18 year olds, yes they would get to apply and be seriously considered. However, it is doubtful that kids from these schools are going to be headed this way looking for jobs in a county with a 19% unemployment rate!

 

Sad, sad, sad....

 

Faith

 

Faith, this is the same phenomena I have been trying to describe in my last few points. It's not that I don't think or want all people to have a liberal arts education; it's that they should be gaining such an education at the high school level. I didn't learn how to write or think critically in college; I did that in 9th and 10th grade, and refined those skills in junior and senior years of high school. I went to college writing on a collegiate level.

 

That isn't the case for most of today's high school graduates. One of the reasons for why I was hooked on WTM's philosophy was reading SWB's accounts of her English/ Rhetoric students at W&M College--a highly rated liberal college, BTW--and how she was seeing a systemic failure of high schools to prep students for university level of thinking and writing.

 

So, you have fewer and fewer high schools putting out real quality graduates, and yet you have higher college/university attendance than ever before.

 

Isn't there something very wrong with that picture? The ratio is upside down.

[Bluegoat]

:thumbup: We're doing the same thing, too!

 

This is also my thought. It's kind of interesting to me that three people with this view are all in Canada.

[Princess Peach]

Our middle dd will be a college senior in the fall, and will be going one extra semester because she changed majors. She attends a local state university and lives at home. She has a $2000 per semester academic scholarship and pays for most of the rest of her educational expenses with her earnings from her part time and summer jobs. We do help her, but most of that help comes from a fund we started when she was a baby. She will probably graduate with no debt.

 

I am so sorry that, apparently, this is so rare these days. I read much of this thread and the "cautionary tale" thread and I am disturbed, and surprised at how much some state schools cost. Ours is under $170 per credit hour. I'm guessing this must be on the low side.

 

Our local state university is $570 per credit hour. :svengo:

[creekland]

 

That's my point. Because we tell folks that they should go to college, college degrees have now become the default. You say that college education should be kept under 30 grand. I attended only a community college, and a state university, which also had the least expensive tuition rates in my area. And still, my debt when I graduated was 50,000, which, BTW, was a lot better than many of my fellow students. A good friend of mine went to UTA as a nurse, and she graduated with 60 grand in debt.

 

Did you try private colleges and/or have the stats to be competitive at private colleges? In our experience, private turned out less expensive than our cc to 4 year option. Many students (or parents) assume the cc/4 year will be the least expensive due to sticker prices and never check out 4 year schools where they'd be (stat-wise) in the top 10 - 25% of students. It's worth trying. With what you've related about your college experience academically, it's not like you'd have been going down in caliber. It's quite possible you'd have gone up (pending stats and actual colleges).

 

I don't think my work place should demand a college degree. I think that HS education could and should provide all the relevant information one needs to start out doing what I do. But many do not, and what's more, competition is fierce, so it all defaults to having a degree. So, now everyone is getting one.

 

I agree that high school should provide a better education. Pretty much all of us on here believe that. Wanting it and having it actually happen are two different things. Choosing not to get a degree (due to principle) in this world that we actually live in is risky.

 

 

So, we are aiming for him to get into such a school. However, we doubt we will be staying in the US, because frankly, I think the university system, and education in general, are more rigorous in certain other places. International ratings bear this out year after year. Don't get me wrong--if he got an offer letter from some place like Rennsalaer or University of NC/ Chapel Hill, or Duke, or some place like that, we'd take a good, hard look. But most those of those places are far, far more expensive to attend than their peers in other countries, such as McGill University, or Cambridge. Ivy League level education, but for far less money than here in the U.S.

 

McGill is a good school. I know a friend whose daughter graduated from there and is now in a top 15 med school. However, for us, due to financial offers, my guys choices have been less expensive than if they had gone to McGill. It will all depend upon the individual, where they apply, and what is offered. There is no one path that is always "the best."

[Bluegoat]

I understand what you mean about coming here and reading negative opinions about college. What I am saying, is that these opinions are not really new, nor are they rare. And that these opinions about higher level education, which traditionally and classically, was always based upon Enlightenment ideals and the scientific method and process, have been watered down by the influx of students who come from traditions that do not value these ideals. When you have a big enough proportion of any body, whether it's an industry or a field, or whatever, that have a certain viewpoint, it causes a sea change in the larger group. That's what I see in university in the last 40 to 60 years.

 

I'm saying that university has become more tenable option to the public at large, because it has curbed its more objectionable intellectual pursuits. Practicality reigns, and so does subjectivism. You see greater numbers of people going to college. I see colleges and universities lowering academic standards in order to coax greater numbers of students, providing a less scholarly education in exchange for a more practical education greatly reduced in scope.

 

 

I agree that this is common. There was a debate on this issue a while ago by a panel on the CBC. One of the panelists who had been a prof of mine suggested that maybe not everyone was really interested in thinking in the way that was the purpose of the university. Another panelist who was the president of another university - one that has IMO totally sold out to a business model - didn't actually understand what she meant. He thought she was saying something about social class and was indignant that she thought some people were not meant for university. He had no concept that the university actually existed for a purpose beyond vocational skills and technology/business oriented research.

 

The scary thing is that this common attitude is unconscious in most people. It is not like they are out to pit the pursuit of pure knowledge against subjective business interests. They just don't seem to realize that the former actually exists.

 

I tend to think though that this is the inevitable result of a society that values things - people, ideas, institutions, based on their perceived economic worth. That is, how much money they can make for property owners.

[*Michelle*]

 

So, you have fewer and fewer high schools putting out real quality graduates, and yet you have higher college/university attendance than ever before.

 

Isn't there something very wrong with that picture? The ratio is upside down.

 

That's certainly the crux of the matter.

[Haiku]

What would an education "bubble burst" look like?

 

To me it would be people thousands upon thousands of dollars in debt for jobs that no longer exist or can be filled by people without 4-year degrees because. It would also look like college becoming so expensive that few can go (and the Obama administration seems to be helping that along by doubling student loan interest rates and lowering the amount of grants students can qualify for), so fewer go, so colleges and universities offer less because they have less money and fewer students to offer to. Which will then depress job qualifications and salaries and look a lot like the first point.

 

Tara