Jump to content

Menu

College bubble?


Recommended Posts

In looking into returning to college to finish my degree myself in a couple of years, I am absolutely struck about something: the amount of electives that have NOTHING to do with a given major necessary in order to complete a degree!!! In looking at a BSBA----why is it necessary to take art history, American history etc??? Biology, chemistry?? Almost half of a major is General Ed and Electives?! What a waste of time! And looking at housing it looks like the housing expenses, compared to real world rent, are about $1000 or more a month----with no privacy or cooking facilities! No wonder college is so overpriced, no wonder kids have to take out such expensive loans----all so they have a piece of paper that says they are job ready---but they aren't really because their education was large and wide as opposed to laser focused on a particular career/major focus. :glare:

 

I guess I am just now seeing something I didn't back when I first started college, but the amount of wasted time/money on classes that should have been covered in high school is ridiculous. I am so glad ds is now planning on College Plus to avoid this racket also, as he is interested in getting a BSBA and I'm so glad he will be able to CLEP out of the fluff electives so he can get to the meat of his major. He'll still be paying quite a bit for a degree, but at least it won't be $35000++ for mostly fluff :tongue_smilie:

 

Am I the only one who seriously questions the sanity of this? I guess all these years homeschooling have left me critical of too much maybe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In looking into returning to college to finish my degree myself in a couple of years, I am absolutely struck about something: the amount of electives that have NOTHING to do with a given major necessary in order to complete a degree!!! In looking at a BSBA----why is it necessary to take art history, American history etc??? Biology, chemistry?? Almost half of a major is General Ed and Electives?! What a waste of time! ........

 

I guess I am just now seeing something I didn't back when I first started college, but the amount of wasted time/money on classes that should have been covered in high school is ridiculous. I am so glad ds is now planning on College Plus to avoid this racket also, as he is interested in getting a BSBA and

 

Under the UK system, you study subjects to (roughly) AP level at school, then concentrate on between one and three subjects at university. For comparison: I studied French and Drama at university. The only courses I took were on French, Drama and (compulsory to go with the French) a little linguistics.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are not the only one with these questions. I find myself thinking about it all the time. All these years of schooling differently than the public schools and then at college I'm handing Dc over to an institution that definitely has become a money-maker and is expensive in terms of time wasted. It's one of the things that keeps me from returning to higher ed myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes--I know---well-rounded students with a nice broad education that does not prepare them for a specific career if that's what the major is supposedly directed towards. I can understand a basic Liberal Arts degree, but for things like business it boggles my mind. Some of the online colleges I have been looking at for myself have very focused courses for the specific major, and yet the more expensive recognized 'brand name' schools with online degrees require more courses in extraneous subjects and literally cost between 3-5 times more. It's so confusing and frustrating for me, and then leaves me even more stumped because I am very hesitant to recommend some of these schools to my son because of the prejudice he might run up against if he doesn't have a more expensive, recognized school name on a resume :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of American colleges want to produce a well-rounded, well-educated individual who can talk intelligently about pretty much any subject that would come up in their circle whether it be science, politics, art, or literature. Then they need to be able to do their job well.

 

This actually doesn't bug me. I like being able to talk about a myriad of topics at higher than the typical high school level with others. I do think being able to think deeply about pretty much any subject instead of just knowing one subject well and being rather clueless about the others is an asset on any job. While MANY Hive members go deep into their educations, this is not the case in the average public school (like where I work). No college wants their degreed graduate to end up on something like Leno where he questioned people on the street and found them to be quite clueless.

 

Online, directed, degrees tend to work well for adults who have been on their job who just need to get a degree to advance or due to new regulations or whatever. At that point, people are "judged" based upon how well they've been doing their job. They've proven themselves in other manners.

 

There are colleges that require less. U Rochester only requires a freshman writing class for all students. Then there are 6 classes of free electives outside of your major (3 each in humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, but one of those sets is fulfilled by your major, so only 6 others). There's a wide variety of choices - and having oodles of choices and being able to pick classes that appeal to the student is one thing students love about the place. I'd love to be sitting on on many of their classes! ;)

 

As usual, it all depends upon what people think about education. I'm in the broad (for overall education) and deep (for their major) camp. In hiring, I'd prefer someone with this type of education over just a pinholed specialty. (And remember, yes, I agree that many Hive kids have it at a college level already, but the Hive is not everyone out there.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of American colleges want to produce a well-rounded, well-educated individual who can talk intelligently about pretty much any subject that would come up in their circle whether it be science, politics, art, or literature. Then they need to be able to do their job well.

 

Yes, but is university the right time to be doing that?

 

What struck me when I lived in Europe is that even the people I met that had 10th grade graduations leading to apprenticeships seemed more well-spoken on what was going on in the world than most US college students I knew. There they get the broad education in secondary ed, and university is for specialization. University should not be a requirement to be generally well educated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found it varies by major and university. For example, most tech unis have only a limited number of non-major courses. (I think dh took 2 English and 3 humanities earning his engineering degree and ds something similar......2 different universities decades apart.) However, if they had gone to unis requiring a core curriculum (like UChicago), the number of humanities credits is higher. (It is something to keep in mind w/math/science students that may not particularly want the humanities core.)

 

For liberal arts/humanities degrees, hasn't it always been that way w/the goal toward balanced graduate? It seemed that way 25 yrs ago when I earned my BA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit - those required classes that had nothing to do with my major were very good for me. College general ed classes were literally my first meaningful exposure to humanities, history, political science and cultural studies. At the university, they are allowed to talk about things they are not allowed to discuss in a public high school, or at least not in ours. If I had skipped those, I would have missed out on learning some things that helped me move into a more adult understanding of the world.

 

BTW these were not electives. They were general education requirements, like college algebra. I have heard so many people complain about having to take college algebra because they don't see how it relates to their lives or careers - but I agree with the answer that it should be part of what you have to do to have the paper that says BA or BS. If there is not at least a minimum level of challenge that applies pretty much everywhere, the degree is meaningless.

 

I did not have any fluff electives available - I was in an engineering program that took 5 yrs to get through, and our only electives were math electives ! We got to pick two of our own math classes just for fun, after all the required ones were done - woo hoo !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but is university the right time to be doing that?

 

What struck me when I lived in Europe is that even the people I met that had 10th grade graduations leading to apprenticeships seemed more well-spoken on what was going on in the world than most US college students I knew. There they get the broad education in secondary ed, and university is for specialization. University should not be a requirement to be generally well educated.

 

ITA, but US public high schools in general cannot accomplish this. Most of them are just grasping at straws already. You may find a magnet school once in a while that can reach higher, and some private schools that can do this. But IMO it's out of reach for most public high schools here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but is university the right time to be doing that?

 

What struck me when I lived in Europe is that even the people I met that had 10th grade graduations leading to apprenticeships seemed more well-spoken on what was going on in the world than most US college students I knew. There they get the broad education in secondary ed, and university is for specialization. University should not be a requirement to be generally well educated.

 

:iagree: My point exactly! College is generally VERY expensive, and shouldn't be wasted on this unless a student chooses it. Not picking on you personally Creekland, but the attitude of discrimination towards online or more focused degrees just fuels this higher education bubble, encouraging people to take out loans for higher ticket degrees :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish we could homeschool for college. Picking and choosing our curriculum and only taking the courses that are important. Think a job would accept my "mom" degree? LOL

 

Lol---wouldn't that be nice :tongue_smilie: We all know that would never, ever go----way, way too much money in higher Ed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish we could homeschool for college.

 

Really? Truly?

 

I have two college grads and one entering in the fall.

 

1) My kids have benefited from close relationships with profs. One arranged for two AMAZING internships for dd -- ones that quite probably resulted both in her getting into the #2 grad school in her field and her receiving an NSF grant (the internships were specifically mentioned in the feedback on her application). (Research overseas in a prestigious lab and an internship in her field of interest at the Smithsonian)

 

2) My kids have done research with profs. "Real" research. None of it resulted in a published paper, but all of it involved them learning the frustrations and the joys of the research process. They are far more prepared for an interesting "nice" job than they would be had they studied the topic with no hands-on experience.

 

3) My younger son will have four arranged 8-week work periods during his freshman and sophomore years. The school coordinates the student/industry interface. The internships are amazing -- working on the teams for various America's Cup boats, etc. Ds has a local job related to his field of interest that is FAR more interesting and relevant than most jobs for 19yo's, but without the college interface he could not hope to have access to these types of internships.

 

4) My kids have had references written by Ph.D.'s in their fields of interest, people with whom they have worked with and interacted over several years. I think this is worth far more than a recommendation written by mom!

 

5) Online classes are NOT the same as being in a class with excited students and face-to-face time with a great prof. While not all colleges and not all college classes provide this, at home my kids would NEVER have this type of stimulating experience! (And I could not hope to teach my kids thermodynamics or advanced physical chemistry!)

 

The U.S. college system has all kinds of issues. College is not for everyone. But colleges can still provide experiences (academic and off-campus internships) that just aren't available except through the college system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Truly?

 

I have two college grads and one entering in the fall.

 

1) My kids have benefited from close relationships with profs. One arranged for two AMAZING internships for dd -- ones that quite probably resulted both in her getting into the #2 grad school in her field and her receiving an NSF grant (the internships were specifically mentioned in the feedback on her application). (Research overseas in a prestigious lab and an internship in her field of interest at the Smithsonian)

 

2) My kids have done research with profs. "Real" research. None of it resulted in a published paper, but all of it involved them learning the frustrations and the joys of the research process. They are far more prepared for an interesting "nice" job than they would be had they studied the topic with no hands-on experience.

 

3) My younger son will have four arranged 8-week work periods during his freshman and sophomore years. The school coordinates the student/industry interface. The internships are amazing -- working on the teams for various America's Cup boats, etc. Ds has a local job related to his field of interest that is FAR more interesting and relevant than most jobs for 19yo's, but without the college interface he could not hope to have access to these types of internships.

 

4) My kids have had references written by Ph.D.'s in their fields of interest, people with whom they have worked with and interacted over several years. I think this is worth far more than a recommendation written by mom!

 

5) Online classes are NOT the same as being in a class with excited students and face-to-face time with a great prof. While not all colleges and not all college classes provide this, at home my kids would NEVER have this type of stimulating experience! (And I could not hope to teach my kids thermodynamics or advanced physical chemistry!)

 

The U.S. college system has all kinds of issues. College is not for everyone. But colleges can still provide experiences (academic and off-campus internships) that just aren't available except through the college system.

 

This is truly wonderful to hear---congrats for your kids! :001_smile: But I NEVER experienced this or saw this at my college. All colleges are not great or give incredible experiences or support of this nature, even if your kids are exceptional. I'm not bashing college in general, but there's no way this experience is the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but is university the right time to be doing that?

 

What struck me when I lived in Europe is that even the people I met that had 10th grade graduations leading to apprenticeships seemed more well-spoken on what was going on in the world than most US college students I knew. There they get the broad education in secondary ed, and university is for specialization. University should not be a requirement to be generally well educated.

 

:iagree:

 

The idea of the general liberal arts education that happens after high school is a very American one; much of what students here learn in college is taught in high school in my European home country, leaving college for specialized education. (In Germany, if you want to major in English, for example, you have to pass a test to prove that you have acquired fluency in high school- whereas in the Us, you can start a foreign language major without knowing the language beforehand, which is terribly ineffective.)

 

To the OP: Not all colleges are created equal. There are many majors which are very focused and have minimal unrelated fluff. I teach at a STEM university, and the required non-related electives are English composition and technical writing, plus US history which is required by law. There are very few free humanities electives needed.

 

OTOH, students complain as soon as they have to take something that is related to, but not directly in the path of, their major. I teach physics, and there are good reasons why engineering and chemistry students should take physics, but they complain bitterly (because it is a challenging class). It is a fine balance between too broad a spectrum that wastes time and does not leave enough classes for the specialization, and too narrow an education that does not give enough perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) My kids have benefited from close relationships with profs. One arranged for two AMAZING internships for dd -- ones that quite probably resulted both in her getting into the #2 grad school in her field and her receiving an NSF grant (the internships were specifically mentioned in the feedback on her application). (Research overseas in a prestigious lab and an internship in her field of interest at the Smithsonian)

 

2) My kids have done research with profs. "Real" research. None of it resulted in a published paper, but all of it involved them learning the frustrations and the joys of the research process. They are far more prepared for an interesting "nice" job than they would be had they studied the topic with no hands-on experience.

 

3) My younger son will have four arranged 8-week work periods during his freshman and sophomore years. The school coordinates the student/industry interface. The internships are amazing -- working on the teams for various America's Cup boats, etc. Ds has a local job related to his field of interest that is FAR more interesting and relevant than most jobs for 19yo's, but without the college interface he could not hope to have access to these types of internships.

 

4) My kids have had references written by Ph.D.'s in their fields of interest, people with whom they have worked with and interacted over several years. I think this is worth far more than a recommendation written by mom!

 

5) Online classes are NOT the same as being in a class with excited students and face-to-face time with a great prof. While not all colleges and not all college classes provide this, at home my kids would NEVER have this type of stimulating experience! (And I could not hope to teach my kids thermodynamics or advanced physical chemistry!)

 

The U.S. college system has all kinds of issues. College is not for everyone. But colleges can still provide experiences (academic and off-campus internships) that just aren't available except through the college system.

:iagree:

especially the bolded.

You have listed many of the great benefits of attending a university in person, which can not be replicated by self study or online classes.

I do not believe that a good live college education can be replaced by distance ed, even if that is becoming more popular.

I see interested students interacting with faculty every day, and I see how much they benefit form this direct interaction, not just in class, but in the lab, during research, in learning centers. Those relationships are very valuable for the students' growth and can not, in the same way, be replicated by self study or distance ed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but is university the right time to be doing that?

 

What struck me when I lived in Europe is that even the people I met that had 10th grade graduations leading to apprenticeships seemed more well-spoken on what was going on in the world than most US college students I knew. There they get the broad education in secondary ed, and university is for specialization. University should not be a requirement to be generally well educated.

 

In my experience with exchange students, most of whom come from Europe and are finished with their school or need one more year, they are more in tune with world events, but not necessarily any better academically started, except with languages (where they shine). It all depends upon which school (not country) they came from and their individual talent. I mainly see them in science and math, so other subjects could differ. Some do well, some don't just like American students. I wish our country would focus more on world news and I wish we'd start languages earlier, but...

 

but the attitude of discrimination towards online or more focused degrees just fuels this higher education bubble, encouraging people to take out loans for higher ticket degrees :glare:

 

The discrimination is there for a reason. The education is not generally equal. There is also discrimination for and against 4 year schools based upon the grads they turn out in their field. This is why I always recommend people seek out where RECENT graduates of any particular school went and seek out employers in their field for recommendations of schools to check out. Degree from school A is not the same as degree from school B, esp when the economy is dragging. It's a fallacy to assume the most expensive is better though. One needs to put forth some effort to research schools. Buyer beware.

 

Really? Truly?

 

I have two college grads and one entering in the fall.

 

1) My kids have benefited from close relationships with profs. One arranged for two AMAZING internships for dd -- ones that quite probably resulted both in her getting into the #2 grad school in her field and her receiving an NSF grant (the internships were specifically mentioned in the feedback on her application). (Research overseas in a prestigious lab and an internship in her field of interest at the Smithsonian)

 

2) My kids have done research with profs. "Real" research. None of it resulted in a published paper, but all of it involved them learning the frustrations and the joys of the research process. They are far more prepared for an interesting "nice" job than they would be had they studied the topic with no hands-on experience.

 

3) My younger son will have four arranged 8-week work periods during his freshman and sophomore years. The school coordinates the student/industry interface. The internships are amazing -- working on the teams for various America's Cup boats, etc. Ds has a local job related to his field of interest that is FAR more interesting and relevant than most jobs for 19yo's, but without the college interface he could not hope to have access to these types of internships.

 

4) My kids have had references written by Ph.D.'s in their fields of interest, people with whom they have worked with and interacted over several years. I think this is worth far more than a recommendation written by mom!

 

5) Online classes are NOT the same as being in a class with excited students and face-to-face time with a great prof. While not all colleges and not all college classes provide this, at home my kids would NEVER have this type of stimulating experience! (And I could not hope to teach my kids thermodynamics or advanced physical chemistry!)

 

The U.S. college system has all kinds of issues. College is not for everyone. But colleges can still provide experiences (academic and off-campus internships) that just aren't available except through the college system.

 

:iagree: Very well written.

 

This is truly wonderful to hear---congrats for your kids! :001_smile: But I NEVER experienced this or saw this at my college. All colleges are not great or give incredible experiences or support of this nature, even if your kids are exceptional. I'm not bashing college in general, but there's no way this experience is the norm.

 

This experience CAN BE the norm if schools are checked out carefully and students take advantage of what is available to them.

 

I see interested students interacting with faculty every day, and I see how much they benefit form this direct interaction, not just in class, but in the lab, during research, in learning centers. Those relationships are very valuable for the students' growth and can not, in the same way, be replicated by self study or distance ed.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree:

especially the bolded.

You have listed many of the great benefits of attending a university in person, which can not be replicated by self study or online classes.

I do not believe that a good live college education can be replaced by distance ed, even if that is becoming more popular.

I see interested students interacting with faculty every day, and I see how much they benefit form this direct interaction, not just in class, but in the lab, during research, in learning centers. Those relationships are very valuable for the students' growth and can not, in the same way, be replicated by self study or distance ed.

 

:iagree: If US public high school was more like college, I would want them to attend that live too. I do not think the "4 yrs living on big uni campus" experience is necessary, but having done both live and online college classes as a returning student, I find the live classes to work much better, whether it's a full university, community 2-yr college, or for-profit business-oriented grad school (I tried all three).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think the "4 yrs living on big uni campus" experience is necessary, but having done both live and online college classes as a returning student, I find the live classes to work much better, whether it's a full university, community 2-yr college, or for-profit business-oriented grad school (I tried all three).

 

I completely agree that the live-on-campus-part of the so-called college "experience" is not necessary, contrary to much popular perception. As I wrote in another thread, I see the purpose of college in the education, and not in becoming independent or learning to get along other students; there are much less expensive ways to learn that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree that the live-on-campus-part of the so-called college "experience" is not necessary, contrary to much popular perception.

 

To us, it's necessary for the fun aspect. It's something I want my boys to have since we enjoyed it in our time. ;) Going to the place that's the right fit for them is equally important to the availability of great academics. If ours didn't want to go, then we'd align our thoughts to what they did want, but we don't have that problem at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do so many "selective" and even "highly selective" colleges offer remediation, especially in writing and math? We've seen it at one of our children's "selective" colleges, and my husband (a math prof) sees it first-hand in his classes! Kids are being graduated from high school without the proper foundation. So much emphasis is put on getting a high score on AP tests, but the kids can't remember what they've "learned" or write a clear essay!

 

Like anything else, there is good and bad in our university system. Some things one considers advantages (on-campus living, for example), can be disadvantages to other students. We do what works best for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To us, it's necessary for the fun aspect. It's something I want my boys to have since we enjoyed it in our time. ;) Going to the place that's the right fit for them is equally important to the availability of great academics. If ours didn't want to go, then we'd align our thoughts to what they did want, but we don't have that problem at all.

 

 

I guess for over $40,000 a year fees for the 'experience' is worth it if your kids are focused on a particular subject and they are guaranteed a high paying job right out of school to start paying off their loans. Or maybe a family is lucky enough to have no loans at schools that expensive and kids totally focused to boot. My dismay is caused by the cost! I know certain degrees can pay off quickly after graduation, but with the statistics still standing at 1 in 10 unemployed or underemployed after graduation, the college 'experience' to achieve the American Dream is very overpriced, especially since apparently now college is meant for producing a well-rounded individual for let's say business who can converse intelligently in Italian renaissance painting :tongue_smilie:

 

We all do what works for our families and kids, but I will never stop shaking my head at the jaw dropping costs of college these days, the constant talk of a massive default loan bubble coming and then the continued nose snubbing at cheaper, more focused online degrees that kids can work for with NO debt :001_huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but is university the right time to be doing that?

 

What struck me when I lived in Europe is that even the people I met that had 10th grade graduations leading to apprenticeships seemed more well-spoken on what was going on in the world than most US college students I knew. There they get the broad education in secondary ed, and university is for specialization. University should not be a requirement to be generally well educated.

 

I'll never forget the homeless man I met on the Paris Metro station who issued a long speech about his philosophical objections to receiving a handout, in excellent English.

 

I am a firm believer that someone who graduates high school should have a fairly firm grasp of the basics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is truly wonderful to hear---congrats for your kids! :001_smile: But I NEVER experienced this or saw this at my college. All colleges are not great or give incredible experiences or support of this nature, even if your kids are exceptional. I'm not bashing college in general, but there's no way this experience is the norm.

 

That is why picking the right college to go to matters. Just like picking the right major that will likely secure a job for you matters. Not all colleges are created equal and not all majors are created equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that a university degree is generally a path to career skills is probably part of the problem, IMO. Yes, people should be coming out of high school with a good basic education. Yes, many of them should have at least some practical job-skills at that time if they are looking at vocational type education.

 

But I would rather have universities offering a well-rounded education than career driven offerings. Having programs like teaching, business, nursing, and so on be university programs has not been good for universities in the long term.

 

It used to be common for people to graduate from high school at about 16, then spend one or two years at a sort of jr college which qualified them for certain jobs or to go on for a very focused BA or BSc. While other students might have gone to nursing or normal school, or others to vocational school - and the latter might not have finished high school at all. The university was really about research and pure sciences and humanities, and so the focus was on time for profs to pursue those things and oversee graduates who would one day replace them. Some people got bachelor's degrees to go on to professions like medicine but that was not understood to be the primary purpose of the institution - it was an important thing as it allowed the primary work of the university to be realized concretely in society but it wasn't driving the search for truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that a university degree is generally a path to career skills is probably part of the problem, IMO.

 

In the UK there is also pressure for universities to train students for jobs. However, the tradition of specialisation is a very long one and not just for professions: Calvin is looking at degrees in either English or English and Classics. Those subjects would be all he would study for three years (the standard length of a degree in England). They aren't exactly vocational subjects. The idea of the specialisation is to go deeply into one or two subjects, rather than skimming the surface of several.

 

Laura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree that the live-on-campus-part of the so-called college "experience" is not necessary, contrary to much popular perception. As I wrote in another thread, I see the purpose of college in the education, and not in becoming independent or learning to get along other students; there are much less expensive ways to learn that.

 

There is value to living on campus...it is called networking. This is coming from someone who lived on campus for 1 year. I was married after that and lived off campus with dh. I don't regret getting married at all and would do it again in heartbeat, but part of the trade off was not being as socially tuned in. I had friends in classes, but I figure it would have been much more so had I lived on campus. I have gotten job offers partly because of the school I attended. Getting jobs most of the time happens because of who you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess for over $40,000 a year fees for the 'experience' is worth it if your kids are focused on a particular subject and they are guaranteed a high paying job right out of school to start paying off their loans. Or maybe a family is lucky enough to have no loans at schools that expensive and kids totally focused to boot. My dismay is caused by the cost! I know certain degrees can pay off quickly after graduation, but with the statistics still standing at 1 in 10 unemployed or underemployed after graduation, the college 'experience' to achieve the American Dream is very overpriced, especially since apparently now college is meant for producing a well-rounded individual for let's say business who can converse intelligently in Italian renaissance painting :tongue_smilie:

 

We all do what works for our families and kids, but I will never stop shaking my head at the jaw dropping costs of college these days, the constant talk of a massive default loan bubble coming and then the continued nose snubbing at cheaper, more focused online degrees that kids can work for with NO debt :001_huh:

 

I think what you might be missing is that hardly anyone pays full price. At some schools the percentage is higher than others, so choose carefully. There are some very nice schools with either merit or need-based aid (or both). It is costing us < 10K per year for our boys to go and live on campus. Part of that is their reward for getting high stats (studying for the SAT/ACT can sometimes pay off better than a high school job), and part of it is our income being < 100K. If I subtract out our "savings" by not needing to cover food costs here, it's really not a bad deal and certainly not as bad as your post would seem to imply.

 

As for student debt? The average is around 24K as per the last story I read on it. Those who have more and who default more tend to have gone to the for profit places. The default rate for 4 year grads is quite low, and to us, a 24K investment is not outrageous for all they are getting. The news tends to focus in on those who have in excess of 100K in debt and don't have jobs, but they certainly aren't the average graduate. I'll never advocate for someone to have that kind of debt for an undergrad degree.

 

The last stats I saw for unemployment with a 4 year degree were around 8%. For a high school degree they were 21%. That's a considerable difference. Many other stats of income difference, etc, are in the recent post over on the college board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do so many "selective" and even "highly selective" colleges offer remediation, especially in writing and math? We've seen it at one of our children's "selective" colleges, and my husband (a math prof) sees it first-hand in his classes! Kids are being graduated from high school without the proper foundation. So much emphasis is put on getting a high score on AP tests, but the kids can't remember what they've "learned" or write a clear essay!

 

Like anything else, there is good and bad in our university system. Some things one considers advantages (on-campus living, for example), can be disadvantages to other students. We do what works best for us.

 

Many of our high school grads - even those who have been in our top courses - end up testing into remedial classes at college. It's sad, but that's why they are needed. It's not due to focus on AP at our school since our school doesn't offer AP. Average high schools are under par IMO.

 

However, there is one other reason [writing] remedial classes can be offered at high level schools - some international students. Middle son is going to room with one and even though his English is quite good for being his 4th language, his writing isn't quite up to par. (He's not coming from Europe.) He's fully intelligent enough to succeed and has the work ethic. He just needs to finer tune some things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Truly?

 

I have two college grads and one entering in the fall.

 

1) My kids have benefited from close relationships with profs. One arranged for two AMAZING internships for dd -- ones that quite probably resulted both in her getting into the #2 grad school in her field and her receiving an NSF grant (the internships were specifically mentioned in the feedback on her application). (Research overseas in a prestigious lab and an internship in her field of interest at the Smithsonian)

 

2) My kids have done research with profs. "Real" research. None of it resulted in a published paper, but all of it involved them learning the frustrations and the joys of the research process. They are far more prepared for an interesting "nice" job than they would be had they studied the topic with no hands-on experience.

 

3) My younger son will have four arranged 8-week work periods during his freshman and sophomore years. The school coordinates the student/industry interface. The internships are amazing -- working on the teams for various America's Cup boats, etc. Ds has a local job related to his field of interest that is FAR more interesting and relevant than most jobs for 19yo's, but without the college interface he could not hope to have access to these types of internships.

 

4) My kids have had references written by Ph.D.'s in their fields of interest, people with whom they have worked with and interacted over several years. I think this is worth far more than a recommendation written by mom!

 

5) Online classes are NOT the same as being in a class with excited students and face-to-face time with a great prof. While not all colleges and not all college classes provide this, at home my kids would NEVER have this type of stimulating experience! (And I could not hope to teach my kids thermodynamics or advanced physical chemistry!)

 

The U.S. college system has all kinds of issues. College is not for everyone. But colleges can still provide experiences (academic and off-campus internships) that just aren't available except through the college system.

 

Well, just like homeschooling doesn't have to totally happen in the home by mom, college could be the same. High school students that are homeschooled still have other teachers, out of home classes, clubs, internships, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think the "4 yrs living on big uni campus" experience is necessary, but having done both live and online college classes as a returning student, I find the live classes to work much better, whether it's a full university, community 2-yr college, or for-profit business-oriented grad school (I tried all three).

 

I completely agree that the live-on-campus-part of the so-called college "experience" is not necessary, contrary to much popular perception. As I wrote in another thread, I see the purpose of college in the education, and not in becoming independent or learning to get along other students; there are much less expensive ways to learn that.
I also agree that living on campus is unnecessary. I did not. By the time I was ready to start college, my parents were living 10 minutes away from my university of choice. (I first announced where I intended to go when we lived 1500 miles away and my father was teaching at another college and I was only six years old! :lol: It happens to be the same school where my father attended grad school from when I was two until I was four, and I knew the campus pretty well)

 

It did not make sense to pay for housing when I could live at home for nearly free (just bus or gas money, and contributions to the groceries on hand.) I don't feel like I missed out on anything. I left for campus by 6:00 a.m. and didn't return until 11:30 p.m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of American colleges want to produce a well-rounded, well-educated individual who can talk intelligently about pretty much any subject that would come up in their circle whether it be science, politics, art, or literature. Then they need to be able to do their job well.[/Quote]
For liberal arts/humanities degrees, hasn't it always been that way w/the goal toward balanced graduate? It seemed that way 25 yrs ago when I earned my BA.
The idea that a university degree is generally a path to career skills is probably part of the problem, IMO. Yes, people should be coming out of high school with a good basic education. Yes, many of them should have at least some practical job-skills at that time if they are looking at vocational type education.

 

But I would rather have universities offering a well-rounded education than career driven offerings. Having programs like teaching, business, nursing, and so on be university programs has not been good for universities in the long term.

 

It used to be common for people to graduate from high school at about 16, then spend one or two years at a sort of jr college which qualified them for certain jobs or to go on for a very focused BA or BSc. While other students might have gone to nursing or normal school, or others to vocational school - and the latter might not have finished high school at all. The university was really about research and pure sciences and humanities, and so the focus was on time for profs to pursue those things and oversee graduates who would one day replace them. Some people got bachelor's degrees to go on to professions like medicine but that was not understood to be the primary purpose of the institution - it was an important thing as it allowed the primary work of the university to be realized concretely in society but it wasn't driving the search for truth.

As I understand it, universities were originally intended to "make one educated." (Way back in the 1500's or whenever universities began appearing regularly.) If you wanted a job, you apprenticed with someone who did what you wanted to do for a living and didn't attend university.

 

It was still that way when my parents attended university in the 1960's and when my father taught at a teachers college in the late 60's-early 70's. If you wanted to be a teacher, for example, you attended a teachers college, though universities had already developed "education departments" and other specialized departments.

 

Even as late as when I attended High School (late 1970's-early 1980's), parental expectation, as seen in my parents and most of my peers' parents, was still largely that one selected a university if one wanted an education and one selected a tech school if one wanted a specific job (with a few exceptions like law or med school). It was definitely beginning to shift, though. The current trend of selecting a university specifically for its reputation of placing students in your chosen profession was already there.

 

As usual, it all depends upon what people think about education. I'm in the broad (for overall education) and deep (for their major) camp. In hiring, I'd prefer someone with this type of education over just a pinholed specialty. (And remember, yes, I agree that many Hive kids have it at a college level already, but the Hive is not everyone out there.)
Just as one example of how being more roundly educated, my husband had two different conversations with his first two supervisors on the job out of college. Both had had a large say in who had been hired, and both had selected him because he was majoring in computer science, but was heavily involved with marching band and choir in college. They felt like programmers who had music experience were better programmers because their brains were better trained to see how the part fit into the whole and for keeping track of multiple things going on at once and for dealing with the abstract.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...