Article in NYT re: Americans losing faith in value of college degree

[Carrie12345]

40 minutes ago, regentrude said:

CC can be a great way to save money if done right, but it requires thorough research.

A lot of research, and that could include graduate paths.

My CC will transfer in its entirety to many schools. Those schools have different concentrations and schedule options (part time, full time, 16 months, 3 years…) and prices. I’m trying to figure out where to transfer to next year so I have a better shot at acceptance into full time graduate school at a fair price with appropriate focuses available. Many moving parts!

[Ginevra]

13 minutes ago, Clarita said:

I just read the article. 

While as the system stands now I have a very hard time suggesting to anyone to go to college just to have a low paying job at the end. I want to be very clear also as a part of that I think it is pertinent as a society to subsidize people in obtaining higher education in non money making fields. Even more so for public good fields such as teaching. Do I think that should fall on an individual or an individual family? No I do not. 

I worked fulltime while getting my masters. It breaks my heart to ask a young person to work fulltime and while getting their bachelors so they can make these ends meet.  

I think we should make these jobs more humane before we ask people to push their children to be teachers. I do believe there are places in this world (and definitely historically in some places) where being a teacher is actually a really good job. 

Yes I think Finland is one such place. Or maybe it’s Denmark. Or both. Teachers are paid well and have social clout the way doctors do here. The standards are high for people to be teachers; I want to say you have to have a MAT. 
 

In my state, some counties require MAT for public school teachers, and teachers start at good salaries here. It’s not a bad choice at all, especially if a student gets their teaching degree from and in-state public and does the Master’s in five, which is offered in several schools. 

[kirstenhill]

2 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

Where there is a will, there is a way.  I chuckle at my niece visiting prospective colleges two years before she even plans to go.  They have oodles of money, and all she wants to do is go out of state because she doesn't want to live in Illinois.  She's gone from wanting to go to Florida to touring schools in Wisconsin.  I'm not sure why Illinois is so terrible compared to those two states.  She couldn't even articulate what kind of state she hoped to live in or why.  I reminded her Wisconsin is cold in the winter, haha!  We won't be spending money on tours because Little Johnny just wants to live someplace else for no reason, lol.  

I'm not sure if the chuckle is because it's two years ahead or because she isn't sure why she likes a particular school...but as the parent of one student who already is at college and another who now (at "two years ahead") is a junior we are scheduling tours with, I'm glad to be starting junior year with tours, because it is so much less rushed.  DD had to do all her tours her senior year because campuses were still not doing tours due to covid her junior year.   It felt very pressed to even see three schools that were 3-5 hrs away, while also thinking about applications and scholarships.  It's much more relaxed to spread it out over a year+.  I'm not talking about flying across the country to take tours on a whim, but I guess for our family I'm happy to take DS on a day trip 3 hrs away or even an overnight trip a bit further away (we will try and stay with friends or family when possible to make it more economical) and see some campuses.   Wisconsin is pretty close to IL, so it's not like your niece has to travel far to check it out.  I think in some ways when you have a student who isn't sure what they might like, starting out by taking a couple tours "just because" can be a good way to start thinking about it.  It doesn't have to cost very much money (maybe just gas and lunch).

[KungFuPanda]

21 minutes ago, Clarita said:

I just read the article. 

While as the system stands now I have a very hard time suggesting to anyone to go to college just to have a low paying job at the end. I want to be very clear also as a part of that I think it is pertinent as a society to subsidize people in obtaining higher education in non money making fields. Even more so for public good fields such as teaching. Do I think that should fall on an individual or an individual family? No I do not. 

I worked fulltime while getting my masters. It breaks my heart to ask a young person to work fulltime and while getting their bachelors so they can make these ends meet.  

I think we should make these jobs more humane before we ask people to push their children to be teachers. I do believe there are places in this world (and definitely historically in some places) where being a teacher is actually a really good job. 

I agree with you. I have complicated feelings about this including a suspicion that things wouldn’t have gotten this bad if teaching were still a male dominated field. Our society is highly subsidized by the free labor of women. I do think there is a difference between pushing your kid into teaching and forbidding it to the point of withholding funds to discourage it.
 

It’s teachers that will force the change and we need bright, young, energetic ones  in this next generation of teachers. Right now they’re worked to death and tired. I hope it’s soon, though, that they start making big demands because there IS power in scarcity. These new adults were NOT taught to suck it up and not complain. They were taught that their mental health is important and to advocate for themselves. I have high hopes for them. 

[Clarita]

9 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

I do think there is a difference between pushing your kid into teaching and forbidding it to the point of withholding funds to discourage it.

That's a response to response to a quote of someone talking about potential salary/tuition mismatch. Not strictly a because you chose this occupation.

[Sneezyone]

13 hours ago, Ginevra said:

I haven’t read the ensuing replies; I was asleep. 
 

To be blunt, none of my kids would have been the above student, unless they had emancipated themselves from our help and advice and done that foolishness on their own. 
 

I have a friend whose daughter attended an expensive school on the other side of the country (so, add in flights/shipping/storage to the already huge expense) for a degree in elementary schooling. *I*, personally, would never endorse this for my own kids. In their case, I don’t think parents or young person hold debt, but they are pretty wealthy and there are wealthy grandparents too. So I guess their view was, we have the money, she can go wherever she wants. I don’t begrudge what other people can do but I personally would not endorse such a plan. 
 

My own daughter earned a double degree in English and French. This turned out perfect for her and she got jobs that directly applied (first, teaching English to French student; then, after Covid shut the world down, working in a bilingual law firm), but I would not have endorsed her attending some expensive OOS school for those degrees. 
 

I don’t give my kids the side-eye over their stated choices, but I do talk to them in blunt realities. Two of my kids are artists, but nobody is going to expensive art and design schools. I help them see ways they can combine their art skills with their better ROI skills. 
 

Your kids are still young; I would encourage you to keep options in mind. Don’t listen to hysterical news sources that make it seem like there’s no such thing as college graduates with no debt. I read the book Debt Free U by Zac Bissionette and, although I do not much like the author’s style, there are good ideas in there. 

One of my roommates majored in East Asian Languages and Cultures with a minor in Japanese. She now works for The Hague and worked in Japan for many years too as a translator. It’s NOT the major. It’s what they plan to do with it and how skilled they are in that area of study.

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, kirstenhill said:

I'm not sure if the chuckle is because it's two years ahead or because she isn't sure why she likes a particular school...but as the parent of one student who already is at college and another who now (at "two years ahead") is a junior we are scheduling tours with, I'm glad to be starting junior year with tours, because it is so much less rushed.  DD had to do all her tours her senior year because campuses were still not doing tours due to covid her junior year.   It felt very pressed to even see three schools that were 3-5 hrs away, while also thinking about applications and scholarships.  It's much more relaxed to spread it out over a year+.  I'm not talking about flying across the country to take tours on a whim, but I guess for our family I'm happy to take DS on a day trip 3 hrs away or even an overnight trip a bit further away (we will try and stay with friends or family when possible to make it more economical) and see some campuses.   Wisconsin is pretty close to IL, so it's not like your niece has to travel far to check it out.  I think in some ways when you have a student who isn't sure what they might like, starting out by taking a couple tours "just because" can be a good way to start thinking about it.  It doesn't have to cost very much money (maybe just gas and lunch).

We’re scheduling  tours now with our 10th grader b/c he’s looking at competitive programs and schools and we want him to be able to apply early action/early decision. This is, literally, 18 months before he needs to start his apps due to heavy band commitments.

[Terabith]

I have hesitated to reply to this topic because I realize that my opinion is so privileged as to be ridiculous, but here goes.  

When I was growing up, my parents told me that undergraduate education was for getting an education, and graduate school was for career preparation.  I was as academic a kid as they come, and I got as good an education as I could growing up, but while I had some fantastic experiences in school, much of my education was in spite of it.  I read widely and deeply, wrote, thought, researched.  If the internet had existed, I would have devoured it, but as it was, I read encyclopedias and much of the library.  When I was applying to colleges, a topic I was often asked in interviews and in essays was why I wanted to attend, and I talked about how I was passionate about the liberal arts.  I wanted to learn about a wide variety of topics.  I wanted to explore ideas.  I wanted to meet people who would change my thinking.  And I did.  I majored in English, and minored in sociology, and I got a pretty fantastic education.  I took calculus and discrete math as electives for the heck of it, and I took some pretty high level science courses.  I was in the honors program and as part of that, we took a different version of general ed requirements for the humanities, and we took them with a core group of 15 kids, and it was phenomenal.  We were taken to plays at the Kennedy Center in DC and operas and concerts.  We had to do something like 15 hours of cultural events a semester.  College opened my eyes about so many things and formed me as a person, intellectually and socially.  Much of my most formative experiences had nothing to do with my major.  I sang in a high level choir and we toured Europe.  I use the skills I learned in that choir almost every day.  Singing is a huge part of my life.  The pe classes I took changed my relationship with my body and physical activity.  The college chaplain helped me spiritually and got me started addressing my mental health issues.  The people that I met were people I am close to today.  I met my husband.  I became through a fluke the editor in chief of the newspaper, and it pushed me WAY outside my comfort zone and gave me some fantastic hands on experiences.  It was absolutely transformative, and I want that kind of experience for my children.  

I don't think it's worth $80k in debt, though.  I had a full ride:  tuition, room and board.  My alma mater no longer offers that scholarship.  I was offered at least one other full ride, and several other full tuition scholarships.  Room and board cost significantly less as a percentage of adult income for people who had to pay that.  It was probably a bit more than could easily be earned in summers and part time by high school and college kids, but not extraordinarily more.  I was a good student, but I was not exceptional.  My high school didn't offer any AP classes.  I had taken two courses at a local liberal arts college.  My SAT was 1310, which was solid but far from exceptional.  I was a good writer, and I came from South Dakota, which I'm sure was a geographical hook for several of the schools I applied to.  But I don't think scholarships were as cut throat then as they are now.  

But...my oldest managed to get a full tuition scholarship to a women's college in our town, largely on the basis of their writing and being local.  We are paying for them to live on campus, because we think it's helpful for this student to have a scaffolded experience in independent living.  Paying for room and board is a real sacrifice for us, and my oldest is taking a small amount of debt to do that.  They may live at home their last two years, if their sibling joins them at Hollins (hopefully with similar money), but it's very possible commuting to college will require us to buy an additional car, and I am not sure that will really be cheaper, but there will also be a car at the end of it.  We have four drivers and two cars, but one is twenty years old and has well over 200k miles, and I am not sure how much longer it will last.  

I know this is massive privilege, and I hesitate to encourage my kids to get an education that may not "pay off" in an immediate sense.  The majority of my friends who majored in the humanities and social sciences are gainfully employed in professional careers, but I think the path to professional success was a lot easier in the late 90s/ early 2000s than it is now.  However, I think having a degree of any sort still opens doors.  A degree isn't necessarily required to do many jobs, and I certainly know MANY well educated people who don't have a degree, but that piece of paper really does offer opportunities that might not exist even for people whose degrees are in less immediately employable fields.  

[Ginevra]

@Terabith I 100% agree with your conclusion. And, I loved reading your story. 

[Dmmetler]

2 hours ago, kirstenhill said:

I'm not sure if the chuckle is because it's two years ahead or because she isn't sure why she likes a particular school...but as the parent of one student who already is at college and another who now (at "two years ahead") is a junior we are scheduling tours with, I'm glad to be starting junior year with tours, because it is so much less rushed.  DD had to do all her tours her senior year because campuses were still not doing tours due to covid her junior year.   It felt very pressed to even see three schools that were 3-5 hrs away, while also thinking about applications and scholarships.  It's much more relaxed to spread it out over a year+.  I'm not talking about flying across the country to take tours on a whim, but I guess for our family I'm happy to take DS on a day trip 3 hrs away or even an overnight trip a bit further away (we will try and stay with friends or family when possible to make it more economical) and see some campuses.   Wisconsin is pretty close to IL, so it's not like your niece has to travel far to check it out.  I think in some ways when you have a student who isn't sure what they might like, starting out by taking a couple tours "just because" can be a good way to start thinking about it.  It doesn't have to cost very much money (maybe just gas and lunch).

And the other side of it was that with a 2021 grad, I am really glad we'd visited several schools before things shut down. Because NO college was business as usual with no modifications in fall of 2020, and most weren't in Spring. Having done some earlier visits made it much easier to extrapolate what schools that were under 50% on campus when we visited would be like when they were back to normal. 

[lewelma]

10 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

Yes!  So much this. People don’t understand, or at least don’t like, that supply and demand apply to labor as well.   
 

I could say a lot more but I don’t want to derail the whole thread.  I honestly don’t think the average person in this country understands the basics of supply and demand or the free market, at least not based on the comments I hear on a regular basis.  

Supply and demand don't work for Teachers for 2 reasons. 1) In the public system, it is a monopsony - only one buyer in a location - so salaries do not increase when there is a scarcity of applicants. Supply and demand rules break down when there is a monopoly or monopsony. 2) State regulation requires attendance by law and regulates things like student/teacher ratios. These regulations/laws constrain the free market so it cannot seek an optimum product for a price people will pay. 

This said from a person who is anti free-market, but does understand it. 🙂

[Sneezyone]

18 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Supply and demand don't work for Teachers for 2 reasons. 1) In the public system, it is a monopsony - only one buyer in a location - so salaries do not increase when there is a scarcity of applicants. Supply and demand rules break down when there is a monopoly or monopsony. 2) State regulation requires attendance by law and regulates things like student/teacher ratios. These regulations/laws constrain the free market so it cannot seek an optimum product for a price people will pay. 

This said from a person who is anti free-market, but does understand it. 🙂

That's not so here. Within an hour radius, there are seven separate cities with seven separate school boards that set their pay and benefit terms independently. Student/teacher ratios are minimally regulated (read: funded) at the state level but they're not, actually mandated as student:TEACHER but student:STAFF. Even in rural areas, you need only travel to another county, an hour or two away, to find different pay/benefit terms. Local pay scales may be similar but it can vary WIDELY within a state and teachers can and do relocate.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Bootsie]

33 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Supply and demand don't work for Teachers for 2 reasons. 1) In the public system, it is a monopsony - only one buyer in a location - so salaries do not increase when there is a scarcity of applicants. Supply and demand rules break down when there is a monopoly or monopsony. 2) State regulation requires attendance by law and regulates things like student/teacher ratios. These regulations/laws constrain the free market so it cannot seek an optimum product for a price people will pay. 

This said from a person who is anti free-market, but does understand it. 🙂

Supply and demand still operate in a monopsony (or monopoly) market; it is simply that there is an additional curve--The marginal factor cost curve--which lies above the supply of labor curve.  It is where this marginal factor curve crosses deman that the quantity of workers hired will be set.  If supply decreases, the marginal factor cost curve also shifts left, and wages will rise above what they were.  

In some markets, a school district will have a great deal of monopsony power, but in many locations a teacher can easily work in more than one district or for a private school; in those cases the monopsony market model does not apply.

[lewelma]

Agreeing to all those subtleties to Monopsony power - it is a much bigger issue here in NZ where we have only one buyer for the entire country for all public schools. However, as to my second point, regulation does constrain the market. We do not see schools with 100 students to 1 teacher like they had in Britian in the 1800s. They would be way cheaper. And by forcing people to send their kids to school by law, you cannot opt out of purchasing the education product. This does impact market forces. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by lewelma

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Agreeing to all those subtleties to Monopsony power - it is a much bigger issue here in NZ where we have only one buyer for the entire country for all public schools. However, as to my second point, regulation does constrain the market. We do not see schools with 100 students to 1 teacher like they had in Britian in the 1800s. They would be way cheaper. And by forcing people to send their kids to school by law, you cannot opt out of purchasing the education product. This does impact market forces. 

We don't force people to send their kids to school tho either...hence all the homeschooling. 🙂 Our society has and can opt out of providing it at adequate levels and we can opt out of participating in it if we jump through a few (or no, depending) hoops.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Heartstrings]

47 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Supply and demand don't work for Teachers for 2 reasons. 1) In the public system, it is a monopsony - only one buyer in a location - so salaries do not increase when there is a scarcity of applicants. Supply and demand rules break down when there is a monopoly or monopsony. 2) State regulation requires attendance by law and regulates things like student/teacher ratios. These regulations/laws constrain the free market so it cannot seek an optimum product for a price people will pay. 

This said from a person who is anti free-market, but does understand it. 🙂

Public employees are different, but capitalism was brought up in regards to deliver drivers  vs engineering or other college degrees. There has been a stink in the US because UPS drivers just got a big raise as part of their  union contract and some people are very angry about them being well paid.  

[lewelma]

In addition, the government requires certifications for many professions - doctors, lawyers, teachers, hairdressers, etc. This gives universities way more power such that they can charge beyond what the market can bear as seen in this thread. Guilds like hairdressers lobby state governments to regulate their industry, because this constrains the supply of workers and keeps wages high. It also requires additional education (and the associated costs) to meet these regulations. This constant drive to increased education, beyond what is required for the job, is due to government intervention. Social workers need masters degrees, for example. This is not free market. 

[Heartstrings]

4 minutes ago, lewelma said:

In addition, the government requires certifications for many professions - doctors, lawyers, teachers, hairdressers, etc. This gives universities way more power such that they can charge beyond what the market can bear as seen in this thread. Guilds like hairdressers lobby state governments to regulate their industry, because this constrains the supply of workers and keeps wages high. It also requires additional education (and the associated costs) to meet these regulations. This constant drive to increased education, beyond what is required for the job, is due to government intervention. Social workers need masters degrees, for example. This is not free market. 

Those are all really good points.  Social work especially.   Their pay is criminally low for the education required, and I’m just not sure they need that level of education.   

[lewelma]

17 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

We don't force people to send their kids to school tho either...hence all the homeschooling. 🙂 Our society has and can opt out of providing it at adequate levels and we can opt out of participating in it if we jump through a few (or no, depending) hoops.

Me personally, I'm actually for more state control and regulation. I just find it odd when people assume things are free market because they have the trappings of them, and then wonder why there is a teacher and nursing shortage. Free market should fix that shortage by raising wages thus drawing in more people to these fields. But people can't afford the education that is required by state legislation. So not so free market. 

I'm for keeping high standards, and subsidizing both the education and wages of professions that are in shortage. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by lewelma

[lewelma]

19 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

We don't force people to send their kids to school tho either...hence all the homeschooling. 🙂 Our society has and can opt out of providing it at adequate levels and we can opt out of participating in it if we jump through a few (or no, depending) hoops.

Well, kind of. I assume that most states have laws as to the age you can leave a child alone in the house for 8 hours a day. If so, then only families with enough means to have a stay at home parent can take advantage of this opportunity. 

[Frances]

25 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Me personally, I'm actually for more state control and regulation. I just find it odd when people assume things are free market because they have the trappings of them, and then wonder why there is a teacher and nursing shortage. Free market should fix that shortage by raising wages thus drawing in more people to these fields. But people can't afford the education that is required by state legislation. So not so free market. 

I'm for keeping high standards, and subsidizing both the education and wages of professions that are in shortage. 

At least in the US, any shortages in the healthcare professions with the exception of the very lowest paid positions such as CNAs are generally due to a lack of training slots, not a lack of qualified, interested people. In some places in the US, it is as competitive to get into nursing school as it is to get into medical school.

For increased wages to help attract more teachers, I think we would likely need different salaries based on how difficult the positions are to fill. So for example, STEM and special Ed teachers would make more than elementary school teachers.

This already happens in some universities where they pay profs more in fields where there are lots of high paid industry jobs (eg computer science). In my state, hard to fill IT jobs are also given a special salary differential. However, I’m not sure most teacher’s unions would agree to this.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Frances

[TechWife]

10 hours ago, Bootsie said:

From an economic standpoint, the reason that roads are generally funded by tax revenue is not because some people can't afford to buy one--it is because roads are what economists call "public goods"--one person's use of the good does not preclude another person's use of the good and it is difficult to prevent people from using the good if they do not pay for the good.  And the economic reason for price regulation of public utilities is because it is a an industry that generally has high fixed costs and low variable costs, making having a number of providers who compete not possible; this leads to a naturally monopolistic industry.

 Public goods are funded by the public through taxes and therefore are accessible to everyone. It is the funding that makes a public road a public good, not the fact that the public drives on them. The government uses tax dollars to buy private property and then constructs a road for everyone to use, no matter how much or how little they personally pay in taxes. There are private roads (it’s noted on the street signs where there are street signs) and it’s considered trespassing for the public to drive on them. Yes, you can keep the public from driving on a private road. 

IIRC, roads weren’t public goods throughout the US until the 1920’s/post WWI time frame. As recently as the 1960’s roads in low income and minority neighborhoods weren’t maintained to the same standards as other roads, ostensibly because they didn’t pay the same $ in taxes. They were public goods but with that calculus, not everyone could afford to live where the roads were kept in good condition and they could even be unusable. 

Yes, that is the reason for price regulation for utilities - because they are monopolies. Without the regulation a monopoly could charge whatever they want to for the utility, there wouldn’t be requirements to maintain the infrastructure, nor to do so in a safe manner.  There would be a price threshold that a monopoly could freely cross that would prevent some from accessing the utility, and that threshold would not be tied to cost but to shareholder profit. Utilities could cut corners on safety and we could end up with contaminated drinking water, unreliable power supply and no alternatives. Regulations inhibit capitalism because they can cut into potential real profits. Cost controls inhibit capitalism because they decrease potential profits. This isn’t pure capitalism. 

[Frances]

35 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Those are all really good points.  Social work especially.   Their pay is criminally low for the education required, and I’m just not sure they need that level of education.   

During the pandemic, my state greatly reduced the education requirements for state social work type jobs. The positions generally have very high turnover, so they have great difficulty attaining and keeping full staffing. They also wanted to more closely mirror the population they were serving, so hoped to increase the diversity of the workforce by lowering the education requirements.

[Frances]

29 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Well, kind of. I assume that most states have laws as to the age you can leave a child alone in the house for 8 hours a day. If so, then only families with enough means to have a stay at home parent can take advantage of this opportunity. 

Since the pandemic, there has been an explosion in the growth of quasi-homeschools (your children are not necessarily at home FT, but they aren’t in public or private school either, more like homeschooling with someone else doing the teaching and supervision), online schooling, etc. Also, so many more parents are working from home. So it’s now much more feasible to both work (either FT or PT) and homeschool. In my state, state workers who worked from home prior to the pandemic could not be simultaneously caring for young children in the home. Now not only has there been a huge increase in the percentage of state workers working exclusively or primarily from home, but they can also care for children at the same time. I would assume many other employers also now allow this. Almost everywhere in the US, public school enrollment has not returned to pre-pandemic levels.

[Corraleno]

21 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Me personally, I'm actually for more state control and regulation. I just find it odd when people assume things are free market because they have the trappings of them, and then wonder why there is a teacher and nursing shortage. Free market should fix that shortage by raising wages thus drawing in more people to these fields. But people can't afford the education that is required by state legislation. So not so free market. 

The cost of nursing education is really not a factor in the nursing shortage here — training to be an RN costs around $15K at my CC, and the average RN salary in this area is over $100K.

There are far more people who want to become RNs than there are training slots — the nursing program here gets more than 400 applications for 32 slots. The problem isn't that the training costs too much, it's that the pay for teaching nursing classes is way lower than the pay for nursing, so no one wants to do it.

And then at the other end of the spectrum you have a lot of trained, experienced nurses quitting because the shortage means they are overworked, stressed out, and burnt out — all greatly exacerbated by the criminal mishandling of the pandemic when they were supposed to willingly sacrifice themselves for the greater good while lacking even basic PPE.

The same issues also affected teachers, with the added disadvantages of low pay, little to no autonomy, crazy aggressive parents, and admins that never have your back. I think a lot of teachers go into it with great enthusiasm and idealism and then realize that no matter how much they care about the kids, everything else about the job really sucks. I mean who really wants a job where what you can and can't teach is decided by a handful of unhinged people (who likely don't even have kids in the system) screaming in school board meetings?

[Carrie12345]

6 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

Those are all really good points.  Social work especially.   Their pay is criminally low for the education required, and I’m just not sure they need that level of education.   

In some (many? all? mine, for sure) you can BE a social worker with a BSW (Not a BA or BS) but your job options and salary are limited. You cannot be a Licensed Clinical Social Worker without an MSW and license.

In my area, places are lowering professional/Ed requirements and supplying supervision for some positions out of desperation, but the salaries reflect that.

OTOH, an MSW can take as little as 15 months if entering with a BSW instead of any other undergrad. And a LCSW can practice (if desired) the same as a PsyD in many jobs, minus diagnosis (in several states.) So it’s way cheaper than similar paths.

That is, if you attend schools accredited by CSWE. Because they have VERY specific course progression requirements. For a school to be accredited, there’s very little “side quest” work. It’s soc/psych intense.

People working in social services without a B/MSW are not social workers. They’re just as important and in some cases more so, but they don’t even get survival wages and have terrible hours. They’re also most often the people who experience the most direct interaction with immediate trauma and make the biggest decisions for vulnerable people. With a hs diploma or GED. (Not that they all stopped there, but they can get in with that.)

The education regulations are pretty fair, imo, for SW work. The work requires professional understanding of all the social sciences. The system it is designed for is &!?$.

[JustEm]

20 hours ago, Corraleno said:

We have a really good, extensive CC system here that is $138 per credit, and free for students with at least a 2.0 GPA who start CC classes in the fall semester following HS graduation. They also accept a lot of CLEPs and transfer credits, and they gave DD full course credit (not just elective credit) for 3 ASU Universal Learner courses.

Many CCs in the US offer online classes to nonresidents for the same price as residents, or for less than CC classes in some of the more expensive systems. For example, a lot of people who are doing online degrees through TESC/Charter Oak/Excelsior take classes through Clovis CC in NM, which is only $111/credit for out of district. And there are places like Santa Fe CC that only charge $61/credit for out of district as long as you only take 6 credits (take 7 or more credits and the cost goes up to $111/credit — still a bargain for many students).

There's a good list of cheap online course options, along with lots of info on other options like CLEP/DSST/ACE on the Degree Forums site, e.g.: https://degreeforum.miraheze.org/wiki/Sources_of_Credit#Examples_of_Colleges_Offering_Distance_Learning_Courses

Thank you for that link. Dh is pursuing his degree at TESU right now and I've been looking for cheaper options to transfer in credits from regionally accredited sources in order to take better advantage of his employers tuition assistance. 

[Bootsie]

8 hours ago, TechWife said:

 Public goods are funded by the public through taxes and therefore are accessible to everyone. It is the funding that makes a public road a public good, not the fact that the public drives on them. The government uses tax dollars to buy private property and then constructs a road for everyone to use, no matter how much or how little they personally pay in taxes. There are private roads (it’s noted on the street signs where there are street signs) and it’s considered trespassing for the public to drive on them. Yes, you can keep the public from driving on a private road. 

IIRC, roads weren’t public goods throughout the US until the 1920’s/post WWI time frame. As recently as the 1960’s roads in low income and minority neighborhoods weren’t maintained to the same standards as other roads, ostensibly because they didn’t pay the same $ in taxes. They were public goods but with that calculus, not everyone could afford to live where the roads were kept in good condition and they could even be unusable. 

Yes, that is the reason for price regulation for utilities - because they are monopolies. Without the regulation a monopoly could charge whatever they want to for the utility, there wouldn’t be requirements to maintain the infrastructure, nor to do so in a safe manner.  There would be a price threshold that a monopoly could freely cross that would prevent some from accessing the utility, and that threshold would not be tied to cost but to shareholder profit. Utilities could cut corners on safety and we could end up with contaminated drinking water, unreliable power supply and no alternatives. Regulations inhibit capitalism because they can cut into potential real profits. Cost controls inhibit capitalism because they decrease potential profits. This isn’t pure capitalism. 

This is not the definition of a public good in economics.  In economics, a public good is a good that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous.  Your description of roads may provide reasons why the government may want to provide these roads, but from an economic standpoints, those reasons are not what makes it a public good. 

And, yes, utilities are often natural monopolies because of their cost structure.  Monopolies reduce output and raise price relative to a perfectly competitive market, but the price is still tied to cost (It is simply that price no longer equals marginal cost).  In fact, in some situations with this type of cost structure, if the monopoly were forced to charge MC as would occur in perfect competition, the utility would not cover its average cost and would not be able to remain in operation.

[Dmmetler]

9 hours ago, Corraleno said:

The cost of nursing education is really not a factor in the nursing shortage here — training to be an RN costs around $15K at my CC, and the average RN salary in this area is over $100K.

There are far more people who want to become RNs than there are training slots — the nursing program here gets more than 400 applications for 32 slots. The problem isn't that the training costs too much, it's that the pay for teaching nursing classes is way lower than the pay for nursing, so no one wants to do it.

And then at the other end of the spectrum you have a lot of trained, experienced nurses quitting because the shortage means they are overworked, stressed out, and burnt out — all greatly exacerbated by the criminal mishandling of the pandemic when they were supposed to willingly sacrifice themselves for the greater good while lacking even basic PPE.

The same issues also affected teachers, with the added disadvantages of low pay, little to no autonomy, crazy aggressive parents, and admins that never have your back. I think a lot of teachers go into it with great enthusiasm and idealism and then realize that no matter how much they care about the kids, everything else about the job really sucks. I mean who really wants a job where what you can and can't teach is decided by a handful of unhinged people (who likely don't even have kids in the system) screaming in school board meetings?

Which is why I'm unlikely to ever teach in a public school, and, under current standards, in a public university, again. I like autonomy and respect more than money. And right now, I can't stand in front of a group of idealistic young adults and prepare them to go into a classroom knowing that they will only be allowed to teach what a vocal handful of people in their district want taught. 

 

It's also why I've discouraged L from getting a teaching license at the BS level. Take more classes in other areas instead. Because right now,it is very, very easy to get an interim position with a college degree (and L would be interested in middle/high school science life science/biology, maybe chemistry) and usually those programs pay you to get the master's. It doesn't make sense to use those undergrad scholarships/for us to pay for a degree when, IF  teaching becomes a viable career again, it will be fairly easy and inexpensive to get it later. And those extra credits can turn into additional teaching areas, or other areas of possible employment-or just be fun.  

[TechWife]

On 9/6/2023 at 9:00 PM, Ginevra said:

Yes, exactly. 
 

I do think, though, that part of the backlash against college comes from a side of the aisle that does not want “free college” to be a selling point for a given political worldview. People who promoted that negative view of college were not about to withhold college degrees - even elite degrees - from their own kids; they just don’t want *voters* to want it. 
 

I can see it driving ideology and worldview only farther and farther apart. 

I will add some to this train of thought. In some areas, both public secondary schools and colleges are loosing their academic integrity due to outside interference in hiring decisions, policy and curriculum. This means that in some cases, the value of the education has declined and people are right to take note.    

In other cases, I think that the value of higher education is being called into question because education is an equalizer. There is a segment of our society that doesn’t want to share either power or economic advantage; and the idea that college isn’t worth the price is being promoted through carefully crafted speeches, articles and interviews. The result is a disincentivizing of college for a number of people. In addition, no real solution is being proposed to curtail college costs because some people see the cost as a legitimate barrier of entry, which reduces competition for both college admissions and career opportunities. High cost is an aid in maintaining control over who will have power and economic opportunity in the future. What I’m really referring to is classism.

The next time you hear a speaker mention out of control college costs, ask what solutions they have in mind to correct the situation. Then, ask if the solution makes college accessible to more people, the same number of people or fewer people.  

[Heartstrings]

7 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I will add some to this train of thought. In some areas, both public secondary schools and colleges are loosing their academic integrity due to outside interference in hiring decisions, policy and curriculum. This means that in some cases, the value of the education has declined and people are right to take note.    

In other cases, I think that the value of higher education is being called into question because education is an equalizer. There is a segment of our society that doesn’t want to share either power or economic advantage; and the idea that college isn’t worth the price is being promoted through carefully crafted speeches, articles and interviews. The result is a disincentivizing of college for a number of people. In addition, no real solution is being proposed to curtail college costs because some people see the cost as a legitimate barrier of entry, which reduces competition for both college admissions and career opportunities. High cost is an aid in maintaining control over who will have power and economic opportunity in the future. What I’m really referring to is classism.

The next time you hear a speaker mention out of control college costs, ask what solutions they have in mind to correct the situation. Then, ask if the solution makes college accessible to more people, the same number of people or fewer people.  

Especially when many of those same voices both went to elite colleges and are sending their children to those same elite colleges, all while telling regular folks it’s not necessary.  

[KungFuPanda]

I’m just waiting to read what @Faith-manor is typing. 😬

[Heartstrings]

 

It probably can’t be overlooked that this attitude of college not being worth it is coming after women start slightly outpacing men in degrees earned.  There are a myriad of other reasons of course, as we’ve discussed here.   It is notable though.  

 

Pew 

Women have overtaken men and now account for more than half (50.7%) of the college-educated labor force in the United States, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. 

[Faith-manor]

6 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I will add some to this train of thought. In some areas, both public secondary schools and colleges are loosing their academic integrity due to outside interference in hiring decisions, policy and curriculum. This means that in some cases, the value of the education has declined and people are right to take note.    

In other cases, I think that the value of higher education is being called into question because education is an equalizer. There is a segment of our society that doesn’t want to share either power or economic advantage; and the idea that college isn’t worth the price is being promoted through carefully crafted speeches, articles and interviews. The result is a disincentivizing of college for a number of people. In addition, no real solution is being proposed to curtail college costs because some people see the cost as a legitimate barrier of entry, which reduces competition for both college admissions and career opportunities. High cost is an aid in maintaining control over who will have power and economic opportunity in the future. What I’m really referring to is classism.

The next time you hear a speaker mention out of control college costs, ask what solutions they have in mind to correct the situation. Then, ask if the solution makes college accessible to more people, the same number of people or fewer people.  

Agreed. There is also an incentive to always have a significant portion of the workforce devalued to justify not paying a living wage and benefits. The reality is, a lot of America want retail and restaurant workers, delivery drivers, custodians, etc. to be a caste of individuals for whom economic movement is not an option so that certain things remain cheap to attain, and mind boggling profits to the top 2% continues robustly. My mother in law is one such person. She is just angry as all get out that anyone could ever attain her level of economic comfort without joining her "class" which she is NOT keen to have them do. That is for her and hers, not for some other folks because she shouldn't have to pay farmers a fair price for their output, or the UPS driver, or the cashier at the grocery store, or.....she says things aloud that many people who feel similarly will not say. The thought of a system like France or Germany where one can live and raise a family while working retail or as wait staff or delivery personnel is "communist" in her head. I think a lot of voters have swallowed this idea hook, line, and sinker.

I personally believe there are several sectors that will shrink dramatically in the next 5-10 years if the overlords don't change. GenZ and Alpha are done. They have had it. They aren't going to play the game anymore, and if the wealthy are not willing to be human, they will not give them an honest day's labor for a pittance. We have fallen well below replacement rate so with immigration this tight, there will continue to be a shrinking workforce as GenX enters retirement. Interestingly, DH say in IT, that when he and his peers retire, companies will have to pay unbelievable price tags for new IT grads because there are not near enough to go around, competition will be absolutely fierce. I have no idea if he is right or not as I have not looked at the statistics. But I do know they have had an open rec on his teak for six months for a solutions architect and have not been able to woo a qualified person. Mark hopes to retire in 3-5 years as do 3 other members of his IT architect team. The company is going to be in a world of hurting. I can only imagine many others will as well.

[Carrie12345]

30 minutes ago, TechWife said:

will add some to this train of thought. In some areas, both public secondary schools and colleges are loosing their academic integrity due to outside interference in hiring decisions, policy and curriculum. This means that in some cases, the value of the education has declined and people are right to take note.    

I have the news on this morning and there have been lots of mentions about teacher shortages.  and how bad it is for students and current teachers. ZERO discussion on why that is. (And I’m talking about a very liberal station.). JUST SAY IT ALREADY!!!!

[Ting Tang]

20 hours ago, kirstenhill said:

I'm not sure if the chuckle is because it's two years ahead or because she isn't sure why she likes a particular school...but as the parent of one student who already is at college and another who now (at "two years ahead") is a junior we are scheduling tours with, I'm glad to be starting junior year with tours, because it is so much less rushed.  DD had to do all her tours her senior year because campuses were still not doing tours due to covid her junior year.   It felt very pressed to even see three schools that were 3-5 hrs away, while also thinking about applications and scholarships.  It's much more relaxed to spread it out over a year+.  I'm not talking about flying across the country to take tours on a whim, but I guess for our family I'm happy to take DS on a day trip 3 hrs away or even an overnight trip a bit further away (we will try and stay with friends or family when possible to make it more economical) and see some campuses.   Wisconsin is pretty close to IL, so it's not like your niece has to travel far to check it out.  I think in some ways when you have a student who isn't sure what they might like, starting out by taking a couple tours "just because" can be a good way to start thinking about it.  It doesn't have to cost very much money (maybe just gas and lunch).

Northern WI is a haul from where they live.  They are likely indulging her, plus her mother does like to post things to Facebook.   She has an idea about the major, but they didn't even know if these schools offered it.  She wants to leave Illinois. but she is unable to articular the "why" part.  Honestly, it is just the luxury that some kids have...and others don't.  She was also drinking at a young age, and I just wonder if she wants to party.   I'm sure your family is a bit more serious about the whole thing--yes, I am assuming, but you mentioned scholarships and applications.  

[catz]

27 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

Northern WI is a haul from where they live.  They are likely indulging her, plus her mother does like to post things to Facebook.   She has an idea about the major, but they didn't even know if these schools offered it.  She wants to leave Illinois. but she is unable to articular the "why" part.  Honestly, it is just the luxury that some kids have...and others don't.  She was also drinking at a young age, and I just wonder if she wants to party.   I'm sure your family is a bit more serious about the whole thing--yes, I am assuming, but you mentioned scholarships and applications.  

FWIW if they are looking at WI directional state schools, those are actually quite affordable in the scope of college pricing.  Would almost certainly be cheaper than UIUC.  I have a kid that went to Madison (though that is different as the flagship for IL residents but we got a great deal there).  There are also LACs in Wisconsin that with merit will come in the range of state flagships.  I know kids who've gotten great deals at Lawrence, Carthage, Beloit, Ripon.  My kid that just applied last  year would have paid less for Lawrence than our state U.  Just because a college is out of state doesn't automatically mean it is more expensive.  

I mean northern WI is a great place to visit anyway this time of year.  We visited a range of colleges while we traveling while our kids were high school age.  Sometimes we used the college as an excuse to travel.  Sometimes we visited a random campus or 2 on a planned trip.  Guess I don't see the problem with this.  🙅‍♀️

Kids that party and don't find balance at school don't last long.  

Edited September 11, 2023 by catz

[Wheres Toto]

There are 37 school districts in my county that you can drive from one end to the other in about 30 minutes (depending on traffic).  They do have very different pay rates and benefits since each is basically set by the school districts.  There is definitely competition between them for staff and people will switch school districts to get a better deal when they can.  It has definitely affected the salaries offered in some districts, as well as other benefits.  One of the top public school districts allows teachers to enroll their kids tuition free (they have a fair number of tuition students as well) and they are able to really pick and choose from a large pool of applicants because of it.  

I see a LOT of supply/demand effects with substitute teachers around here.  They rates have gone up quite a bit the past year or so due to the lack of subs, while also lowering the requirements.

[Ting Tang]

4 hours ago, catz said:

FWIW if they are looking at WI directional state schools, those are actually quite affordable in the scope of college pricing.  Would almost certainly be cheaper than UIUC.  I have a kid that went to Madison (though that is different as the flagship for IL residents but we got a great deal there).  There are also LACs in Wisconsin that with merit will come in the range of state flagships.  I know kids who've gotten great deals at Lawrence, Carthage, Beloit, Ripon.  My kid that just applied last  year would have paid less for Lawrence than our state U.  Just because a college is out of state doesn't automatically mean it is more expensive.  

I mean northern WI is a great place to visit anyway this time of year.  We visited a range of colleges while we traveling while our kids were high school age.  Sometimes we used the college as an excuse to travel.  Sometimes we visited a random campus or 2 on a planned trip.  Guess I don't see the problem with this.  🙅‍♀️

Kids that party and don't find balance at school don't last long.  

I agree - we like WI a lot. I probably shouldn’t criticize her further. I don’t want to get into trouble, lol. My husband has thoughts he feeds to me, but I’ve found myself saying to my kids, “you’re not doing that.” It’s good to know it’s reasonably affordable, though, so thank you!