I thought her analysis re AS degrees ROI was especially good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/25/declining-college-education-rate-economic-threat/
Hmm... what it they are white 'cisgender' straight males? There is nothing on my school's DEI website that mentions anything of any value that they are involved in, except maybe confessing their privilege. Higher education has a problem it has done everything conceivable to deserve.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2022, 08:53:31 AM
I thought her analysis re AS degrees ROI was especially good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/25/declining-college-education-rate-economic-threat/
An important point:
Quote
Meanwhile, K-12 education has a lot of catching up to do so today's children can eventually make it to college. Standardized testing data released Monday showed reading and math scores for fourth through eighth graders have plunged since the pandemic began, down to levels not seen in two decades.
It's not going to be possible to get more people
into PSE if they aren't
prepared for PSE.
Question: If there are many more programs now to help students, including (especially!) students who might have fallen through the cracks before, why are scores
worse now? It can't be
all pandemic-related.
There was a great (too me obvious) analysis of the K-12 "drop" by Eugene Robinson. Again, the hardest hit were inner city and rural students without access to fast internet and with higher concentrations of low income families. Look at the breakdowns, and it was entirely predictable. The only group that saw losses across all levels of income and access was 8th graders, who if you have taught or interacted with schools you know are the worst at completing tasks. Especially when they are at home in bedrooms with social media available.
Robinson also pointed out there were no differences state by state based on Rep vs Dem state government.
I put drop in quotes above as the NAEP scores for many states was actually a stagnation.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2022, 08:53:31 AM
I thought her analysis re AS degrees ROI was especially good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/25/declining-college-education-rate-economic-threat/
I'd have to agree that it is disturbing to see educational attainment, including attainment in higher education, declining like it is. We're not going to have the well-developed human capital we need for the future. We need those educated workers.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2022, 10:21:23 AM
There was a great (too me obvious) analysis of the K-12 "drop" by Eugene Robinson. Again, the hardest hit were inner city and rural students without access to fast internet and with higher concentrations of low income families. Look at the breakdowns, and it was entirely predictable. The only group that saw losses across all levels of income and access was 8th graders, who if you have taught or interacted with schools you know are the worst at completing tasks. Especially when they are at home in bedrooms with social media available.
From the linked article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/10/24/pandemic-learning-loss-naep-tests/?itid=lk_inline_manual_3):
Quote
The declines registered were particularly troubling given that American academic performance was already shaky. In early 2020, before the pandemic upended schools, NAEP test scores in both reading and math declined for 13-year-old students, the first drop registered since the tests started to be administered in 1969.
It started
before the pandemic.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2022, 08:53:31 AM
I thought her analysis re AS degrees ROI was especially good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/25/declining-college-education-rate-economic-threat/
Well, it's descriptively better than most higher ed interest group pieces.
The analysis, or the rhetoric, is misleading. "We actually need more people going to, and ultimately graduating from, college." Who's this "we", and what does "need " mean? "
Some of us actually
want more people going to, and ultimately graduating from college" is what's being said.
Substantively it is claimed that "These trends threaten our future workforce and, ultimately, the U.S. economy.". They do no such thing. Those
not going to college are doing best for themselves, given the facts of costs and benefits. There is no reason to think we know more about these individuals than they do. And, it's not "our" workforce. It's people making the best decisions for themselves. The economy is us.
QuoteThe economy is us.
Having too many colleges for the number of people who want to attend should be solved by closing colleges until things are in balance.
Quote from: dismalist on October 25, 2022, 10:47:56 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2022, 08:53:31 AM
I thought her analysis re AS degrees ROI was especially good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/25/declining-college-education-rate-economic-threat/
Well, it's descriptively better than most higher ed interest group pieces.
The analysis, or the rhetoric, is misleading. "We actually need more people going to, and ultimately graduating from, college." Who's this "we", and what does "need " mean? "Some of us actually want more people going to, and ultimately graduating from college" is what's being said.
Substantively it is claimed that "These trends threaten our future workforce and, ultimately, the U.S. economy.". They do no such thing. Those not going to college are doing best for themselves, given the facts of costs and benefits. There is no reason to think we know more about these individuals than they do. And, it's not "our" workforce. It's people making the best decisions for themselves. The economy is us.
I think the "we" is the basis of some of our disagreements in past threads. The "we" is society. I understand your points, but I think it is an entirely defensible position on my part (and Charlotte's) that "we" in society are better served by having "enough" college educated workers in the work force. I think there is a case (especially with AS degrees) that there soon won't be. If that leads to a change in licensing and educational requirements for those professions we'll see. I for one don't want less educated nurses, social support and law enforcement officers.
Quote from: dismalist on October 25, 2022, 10:47:56 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2022, 08:53:31 AM
I thought her analysis re AS degrees ROI was especially good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/25/declining-college-education-rate-economic-threat/
Well, it's descriptively better than most higher ed interest group pieces.
The analysis, or the rhetoric, is misleading. "We actually need more people going to, and ultimately graduating from, college." Who's this "we", and what does "need " mean? "Some of us actually want more people going to, and ultimately graduating from college" is what's being said.
Substantively it is claimed that "These trends threaten our future workforce and, ultimately, the U.S. economy.". They do no such thing. Those not going to college are doing best for themselves, given the facts of costs and benefits. There is no reason to think we know more about these individuals than they do. And, it's not "our" workforce. It's people making the best decisions for themselves. The economy is us.
I agree that editorial writers get overly hazy about defining "we" and "need". I often read this framing as "I wish everyone else would do this thing so I'd feel better." Then I don't care to read further.
America being America, if "we" don't have enough high school graduates ready for the rigors of college, "we" will just bring in enough Indian and Chinese graduate students to meet "our" needs in filling such technical, medical, business, or engineering needs. "We" will still have to graduate enough domestic students with the potential for law school since that seems less attractive to overseas students looking to move to the Land of the Screed and the Home of the Depraved. Supporting a talented Indian grad student for 3-5 years is probably cheaper than supporting a domestic knucklehead for 12.
Although there may be some pulling back from the belief that college is an economic necessity in the 21st Century, I'd say the bigger problem is inadequate preparation in the high schools. Getting a credential to teach K-12 is one of the easier paths to the middle class in the US. Admission to a teacher's college in Canada, and much of Europe is highly competitive - akin to getting into med school. K-12 teaching (especially given the generally poor salaries) does not attract the best and the brightest (go back and review the late, lamented comments of Polly on discussing the education students in her classes). And when you add the hyper politicized K-12 environment where teachers of modest ability must answer to the whims of the various cranks, crackpots, dingbats, and fantasists on school boards - well no wonder we're in the mess we are.
It becomes easier to import our brains. It's probably cheaper too.
Quote from: secundem_artem on October 25, 2022, 02:12:12 PM
America being America, if "we" don't have enough high school graduates ready for the rigors of college, "we" will just bring in enough Indian and Chinese graduate students to meet "our" needs in filling such technical, medical, business, or engineering needs. "We" will still have to graduate enough domestic students with the potential for law school since that seems less attractive to overseas students looking to move to the Land of the Screed and the Home of the Depraved. Supporting a talented Indian grad student for 3-5 years is probably cheaper than supporting a domestic knucklehead for 12.
Although there may be some pulling back from the belief that college is an economic necessity in the 21st Century, I'd say the bigger problem is inadequate preparation in the high schools. Getting a credential to teach K-12 is one of the easier paths to the middle class in the US. Admission to a teacher's college in Canada, and much of Europe is highly competitive - akin to getting into med school. K-12 teaching (especially given the generally poor salaries) does not attract the best and the brightest (go back and review the late, lamented comments of Polly on discussing the education students in her classes). And when you add the hyper politicized K-12 environment where teachers of modest ability must answer to the whims of the various cranks, crackpots, dingbats, and fantasists on school boards - well no wonder we're in the mess we are.
It becomes easier to import our brains. It's probably cheaper too.
There is no need for a
deus ex machina, here immigration. Labor markets are like all other markets [starvation and obesity of the workers aside] -- if "we" don't have enough "PhD playground monitors", their wage will rise until they can pay off their loans, live like kings, and then "we" will have enough! There is no problem.
K-12 is a socialized industry. It is run to serve the employees, who vote, not the customers. I believe that is changing. Quality can only go up.
Quote from: dismalist on October 25, 2022, 02:28:19 PM
K-12 is a socialized industry. It is run to serve the employees, who vote, not the customers. I believe that is changing. Quality can only go up.
I completely disagree with this statement. It is a trope, and untrue outside a few large teacher organizations in the big cities. For decades all the surveys with parents indicate overwhelming satisfaction with their local schools while at the same time believing that K-12 education was going to the dogs nationally. It was, and remains alogical disconnect.
I admit might statement may be less applicable after the last six years.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2022, 05:46:20 PM
Quote from: dismalist on October 25, 2022, 02:28:19 PM
K-12 is a socialized industry. It is run to serve the employees, who vote, not the customers. I believe that is changing. Quality can only go up.
I completely disagree with this statement. It is a trope, and untrue outside a few large teacher organizations in the big cities. For decades all the surveys with parents indicate overwhelming satisfaction with their local schools while at the same time believing that K-12 education was going to the dogs nationally. It was, and remains alogical disconnect.
I admit might statement may be less applicable after the last six years.
I've also read that many or most parents were happy with K-12. For day-care, surely.
[I live next to a High School. Football sounds abound. My sister taught High School for many years. There's nothing there.]
I'm also quite sure that parents have come to like their K-12 less. I'm sure the Virginia governor's race was determined by that one problem at the margin. The individual States can take care of themselves. My major malfunction is inner cities. And it ain't money.
dismalest wrote "I've also read that many or most parents were happy with K-12. For day-care, surely."
Nope. Those surveys (over decades) describe their satisfaction with the quality of their local schools. Similar results for non-parents.
Things certainly have changed with the pandemic. One reason that parents wanted their kids back in schools was the recognition of how hard it is to help your child learn, and an appreciation for what teachers actually do. Another is (duh) that there are serious limitations when scaling distance ed up to those who don't want to go that route. We've experienced those limitations in college for years. Many students are forced into that modality due to limitations on the number of open f2f sections, or those that fit into a working student's work schedule. It doesn't go well.
Quote from: dismalist on October 25, 2022, 06:12:14 PM
I'm also quite sure that parents have come to like their K-12 less. I'm sure the Virginia governor's race was determined by that one problem at the margin. The individual States can take care of themselves. My major malfunction is inner cities. And it ain't money.
New York spends more on K-12 than most states, so it is perhaps taking care of itself. The rural and suburban schools get pricy, especially when small. Some charter schools have really set a new standard, with one suburban school district having but one school with 115 elementary students and a $40 million budget (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?ID2=3604758). (None of those students will be going to college, BTW).
Quote from: Hibush on October 25, 2022, 07:54:48 PM
Quote from: dismalist on October 25, 2022, 06:12:14 PM
I'm also quite sure that parents have come to like their K-12 less. I'm sure the Virginia governor's race was determined by that one problem at the margin. The individual States can take care of themselves. My major malfunction is inner cities. And it ain't money.
New York spends more on K-12 than most states, so it is perhaps taking care of itself. The rural and suburban schools get pricy, especially when small. Some charter schools have really set a new standard, with one suburban school district having but one school with 115 elementary students and a $40 million budget (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?ID2=3604758). (None of those students will be going to college, BTW).
Looks like there's plenty of money [in NY State at least], as I said.
Quote from: Hibush on October 25, 2022, 12:48:06 PM
Quote from: dismalist on October 25, 2022, 10:47:56 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on October 25, 2022, 08:53:31 AM
I thought her analysis re AS degrees ROI was especially good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/25/declining-college-education-rate-economic-threat/
Well, it's descriptively better than most higher ed interest group pieces.
The analysis, or the rhetoric, is misleading. "We actually need more people going to, and ultimately graduating from, college." Who's this "we", and what does "need " mean? "Some of us actually want more people going to, and ultimately graduating from college" is what's being said.
Substantively it is claimed that "These trends threaten our future workforce and, ultimately, the U.S. economy.". They do no such thing. Those not going to college are doing best for themselves, given the facts of costs and benefits. There is no reason to think we know more about these individuals than they do. And, it's not "our" workforce. It's people making the best decisions for themselves. The economy is us.
I agree that editorial writers get overly hazy about defining "we" and "need". I often read this framing as "I wish everyone else would do this thing so I'd feel better." Then I don't care to read further.
Remember that this is journalism and not scholarly writing. Don't overthink it.
Editorials are short and generalized since realistically they will not hold readers' attention all that long. Rampell is given a hard wordcount to fit in-between the advertisements, so she is writing with great concision and clarity.
The "we" is simply the "editorial we" (standard practice in op-ed pieces) as if Rampell is a spokesperson for the culture. She is not referencing "we" as in arrogant middle-class Karens or snooty educated Poindexters, but American culture at large. It's no different than, say, "we need an amendment..." or "we need to worry about global climate change" or whatever.
I've wondered about the very things she writes. There will be a bubble. There are only so many apprenticeships to go around, and we only need so many hotel night clerks. I hope we have not damaged the infrastructure of higher ed so badly that it cannot recoup in short order if we need to educate near-future generations.
QuoteI hope we have not damaged the infrastructure of higher ed so badly that it cannot recoup in short order if we need to educate near-future generations.
That's the thing about things that have made themselves too big to fail. They never cease; they just find different ways to limp along.
Well, here is an example of why we need more college graduates. We need them to go to law school, pass the bar exam, and have successful enough careers to become judges.
Riverside County Dismisses Criminal Cases Due to Lack of Judges (https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/crime_courts/2022/10/25/hundreds-riverside-county-criminal-cases-dismissed-amid-judge-shortage/10598314002/?utm_source=desertsun-DailyBriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_briefing&utm_term=hero&utm_content=PPAS-1082DS-E-NLETTER65)
One thing that strikes me is that the statement
"We need more people to go to college."
is like saying
"We need more groceries."
If we need milk, getting bread won't help. If we need eggs, getting milk won't help. And a case of ketchup, even if it's on a 50% sale, isn't going to much help at all.
The economy has shortages in certain skill areas, and extra graduates in unrelated areas won't help at all.
If I ran things I would have closed all schools for a year during Covid and then have students graduate high school one year later than normal. Read books, learn a musical instrument, make art, find a new hobby, exercise, etc. The whole online learning venture was a disaster for students and teachers.
Quote from: Anselm on October 26, 2022, 08:13:45 AM
If I ran things I would have closed all schools for a year during Covid and then have students graduate high school one year later than normal. Read books, learn a musical instrument, make art, find a new hobby, exercise, etc. The whole online learning venture was a disaster for students and teachers.
This would probably have been for the best. On the other hand, if K12 wasn't going to be suspended, it probably would've been best to have a F2F, come hell or high water, approach instead of online. If I'm not mistaken Singapore had that approach, i.e., never went online at all. At the opposite extreme, Mexico kept schools online longest of any country in the world, keeping them shut even as the bars were packed. Perhaps it's not strange that Singapore, one of the countries most serious about education in the entire world, went for F2F, while Mexico, notoriously unserious about it, went for the opposite approach.
I think the US won't really have, overall, too big of a problem in terms of getting enough labor. The US can easily import labor, whether low-skill, low-wage labor, or highly skilled labor. The visa process probably needs major surgery in terms of categories, etc, and needs to be more efficient, but there is no shortage of would-be immigrants. There are exceptions like obvious security issues in having, say, Chinese immigrants in sensitive positions, but mostly it would seem eminently manageable in terms of American demand and global labor supply. The real question, I think, is about how Americans fare - college is a pretty raw deal for those who don't graduate, for example.
QuoteThe economy has shortages in certain skill areas, and extra graduates in unrelated areas won't help at all.
QuoteI think the US won't really have, overall, too big of a problem in terms of getting enough labor.
With flexible wages, there are no labor shortages of any kind. We get what we pay for, exactly.
Published worries about labor shortages are due either to misunderstandings, or special pleading.
Quote from: dismalist on October 26, 2022, 09:21:20 AM
QuoteThe economy has shortages in certain skill areas, and extra graduates in unrelated areas won't help at all.
QuoteI think the US won't really have, overall, too big of a problem in terms of getting enough labor.
With flexible wages, there are no labor shortages of any kind. We get what we pay for, exactly.
Published worries about labor shortages are due either to misunderstandings, or special pleading.
The value of economic projections, (good ones, that is), lies in the fact that things like training takes time. Yes, the market will correct over time, but even sky-high wages won't help hiring if all of the *qualified people are already employed. (They can move to higher-paying employers, but they will leave shortages behind.) So being able to advise young people about labour trends and opportunities that are likely down the road is worthwhile.
(The generic "we need more people to go to college", on the other hand, is useless for this purpose for the reason I stated above.)
*including international candidates - a
global shortage of basketweavers isn't going to be alleviated until more are trained.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2022, 10:31:21 AM
Quote from: dismalist on October 26, 2022, 09:21:20 AM
QuoteThe economy has shortages in certain skill areas, and extra graduates in unrelated areas won't help at all.
QuoteI think the US won't really have, overall, too big of a problem in terms of getting enough labor.
With flexible wages, there are no labor shortages of any kind. We get what we pay for, exactly.
Published worries about labor shortages are due either to misunderstandings, or special pleading.
The value of economic projections, (good ones, that is), lies in the fact that things like training takes time. Yes, the market will correct over time, but even sky-high wages won't help hiring if all of the *qualified people are already employed. (They can move to higher-paying employers, but they will leave shortages behind.) So being able to advise young people about labour trends and opportunities that are likely down the road is worthwhile.
(The generic "we need more people to go to college", on the other hand, is useless for this purpose for the reason I stated above.)
*including international candidates - a global shortage of basketweavers isn't going to be alleviated until more are trained.
Nay, wages of those left behind rise, too, until we're not willing to pay them more. While it takes time to invest, i.e. changing quantities, the market clears quickly, making a shortage impossible. It does so by having prices and wages change so that we are content to pay for the available quantities.
This is not relying on projections of a centralized kind, though individuals can of course use available information to gamble if they wish. If they don't wish to gamble, they can
see the wages of a profession or skill rise and start investing in their human capital .
There is no problem if wages are free to change.
Quote from: dismalist on October 26, 2022, 10:40:29 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2022, 10:31:21 AM
The value of economic projections, (good ones, that is), lies in the fact that things like training takes time. Yes, the market will correct over time, but even sky-high wages won't help hiring if all of the *qualified people are already employed. (They can move to higher-paying employers, but they will leave shortages behind.) So being able to advise young people about labour trends and opportunities that are likely down the road is worthwhile.
(The generic "we need more people to go to college", on the other hand, is useless for this purpose for the reason I stated above.)
*including international candidates - a global shortage of basketweavers isn't going to be alleviated until more are trained.
Nay, wages of those left behind rise, too, until we're not willing to pay them more. While it takes time to invest, i.e. changing quantities, the market clears quickly, making a shortage impossible. It does so by having prices and wages change so that we are content to pay for the available quantities.
This is not relying on projections of a centralized kind, though individuals can of course use available information to gamble if they wish. If they don't wish to gamble, they can see the wages of a profession or skill rise and start investing in their human capital .
There is no problem if wages are free to change.
In physics, oscillatory systems are either
under-damped,
over-damped, or
critically-damped. An underdamped system oscillates and can take a long time to settle. This is what an entirely free market is like. An overdamped system doesn't oscillate, but very slowly reaches equilibrium. This is what a government bureaucracy often does. A critically-damped system has just enough inertia to reach equilibrium as quickly as possible without oscillation.
This should be the goal of government intervention.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2022, 10:50:31 AM
Quote from: dismalist on October 26, 2022, 10:40:29 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2022, 10:31:21 AM
The value of economic projections, (good ones, that is), lies in the fact that things like training takes time. Yes, the market will correct over time, but even sky-high wages won't help hiring if all of the *qualified people are already employed. (They can move to higher-paying employers, but they will leave shortages behind.) So being able to advise young people about labour trends and opportunities that are likely down the road is worthwhile.
(The generic "we need more people to go to college", on the other hand, is useless for this purpose for the reason I stated above.)
*including international candidates - a global shortage of basketweavers isn't going to be alleviated until more are trained.
Nay, wages of those left behind rise, too, until we're not willing to pay them more. While it takes time to invest, i.e. changing quantities, the market clears quickly, making a shortage impossible. It does so by having prices and wages change so that we are content to pay for the available quantities.
This is not relying on projections of a centralized kind, though individuals can of course use available information to gamble if they wish. If they don't wish to gamble, they can see the wages of a profession or skill rise and start investing in their human capital .
There is no problem if wages are free to change.
In physics, oscillatory systems are either under-damped, over-damped, or critically-damped. An underdamped system oscillates and can take a long time to settle. This is what an entirely free market is like. An overdamped system doesn't oscillate, but very slowly reaches equilibrium. This is what a government bureaucracy often does. A critically-damped system has just enough inertia to reach equilibrium as quickly as possible without oscillation. This should be the goal of government intervention.
And the government does not have the knowledge to effectuate this, least of all on the micro level we're discussing. Free markets in individual goods and services in no way oscillate and take a long time to settle.
It might be said that it used to be thought that the
macroeconomy might be underdamped. Two central bodies, government and central bank, could try to smooth out deviations from bliss. Their success has been, well, oscillatory! I think success depend on politics as well as having the right theory.
Quote from: dismalist on October 26, 2022, 11:05:25 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2022, 10:50:31 AM
Quote from: dismalist on October 26, 2022, 10:40:29 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 26, 2022, 10:31:21 AM
The value of economic projections, (good ones, that is), lies in the fact that things like training takes time. Yes, the market will correct over time, but even sky-high wages won't help hiring if all of the *qualified people are already employed. (They can move to higher-paying employers, but they will leave shortages behind.) So being able to advise young people about labour trends and opportunities that are likely down the road is worthwhile.
(The generic "we need more people to go to college", on the other hand, is useless for this purpose for the reason I stated above.)
*including international candidates - a global shortage of basketweavers isn't going to be alleviated until more are trained.
Nay, wages of those left behind rise, too, until we're not willing to pay them more. While it takes time to invest, i.e. changing quantities, the market clears quickly, making a shortage impossible. It does so by having prices and wages change so that we are content to pay for the available quantities.
This is not relying on projections of a centralized kind, though individuals can of course use available information to gamble if they wish. If they don't wish to gamble, they can see the wages of a profession or skill rise and start investing in their human capital .
There is no problem if wages are free to change.
In physics, oscillatory systems are either under-damped, over-damped, or critically-damped. An underdamped system oscillates and can take a long time to settle. This is what an entirely free market is like. An overdamped system doesn't oscillate, but very slowly reaches equilibrium. This is what a government bureaucracy often does. A critically-damped system has just enough inertia to reach equilibrium as quickly as possible without oscillation. This should be the goal of government intervention.
And the government does not have the knowledge to effectuate this, least of all on the micro level we're discussing. Free markets in individual goods and services in no way oscillate and take a long time to settle.
It might be said that it used to be thought that the macroeconomy might be underdamped. Two central bodies, government and central bank, could try to smooth out deviations from bliss. Their success has been, well, oscillatory! I think success depend on politics as well as having the right theory.
By chance, I came across this illuminating video by Steve Levitt, precisely on forecasting macro [e.g. inflation] and micro [e.g. jobs in higher ed]. I think he goes a tad too far with his views on macro, but it's a useful picture.
It's only 2 ½ minutes long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8SRUU2Pt68 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8SRUU2Pt68)