Free College for most?

[apl68]

It doesn't work that way in much of Europe. The trade school track kids don't much qualify compared to the dedicated college-track kids. Or, the kids have to perform well on national tests and/or meet other academic per-requisites (which are usually only incorporated into the college-track kids' programs).

My understanding is that, in addition to this, the number of spaces in programs is sometimes determined by their usefulness to the economy. So the total number of underwater basketweaving spaces available is a lot less than the number of electrical engineering spaces. This would solve the adjunct problem discussed here a lot since that would mean the kinds of fields where the only jobs requiring a particular degree are within academia itself would have extremely few spaces.

I am confused by the examples here. Underwater basketweaving is of tremendous importance for the future. With climate change, an even higher percentage of the Earth's surface will be covered by water. Baskets are critical entities for collecting and moving goods. Thus, underwater basketweaving provides students with skills that are integral to the future economy. In contrast, those that are trained as electrical engineers are likely to have a very bad end, as electric circuits short-out during the incoming deluge of ocean waters.

/snark

You've got a point about future labor needs.  At least for parts of Louisiana and Florida.  Their state university systems need to invest in underwater basketweaving ASAP!

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

My understanding is that, in addition to this, the number of spaces in programs is sometimes determined by their usefulness to the economy. So the total number of underwater basketweaving spaces available is a lot less than the number of electrical engineering spaces. This would solve the adjunct problem discussed here a lot since that would mean the kinds of fields where the only jobs requiring a particular degree are within academia itself would have extremely few spaces.

There is less strategic planning of national education needs in the US, but some of this is possible at the institution level. If an institution has a clear mission, and knows well its sources of revenue and cost of education, then it is possible to figure out how many slots to open in each major. The school can adjust if the mission becomes misaligned with societal demand, revenue changes or student supply.

This implies that much of the adjunct problem can be potentially solved even at a departmental level or below (i.e. by individual professors). Both PhD oversupply and outrageously high attrition rates in certain fields can be fixed by departments themselves as long as they make peace with having fewer grad-students. So, there are no institution-level administrators to disparage for a failure to do so.

[Hibush]

There is less strategic planning of national education needs in the US, but some of this is possible at the institution level. If an institution has a clear mission, and knows well its sources of revenue and cost of education, then it is possible to figure out how many slots to open in each major. The school can adjust if the mission becomes misaligned with societal demand, revenue changes or student supply.

My understanding is that, in addition to this, the number of spaces in programs is sometimes determined by their usefulness to the economy. So the total number of underwater basketweaving spaces available is a lot less than the number of electrical engineering spaces. This would solve the adjunct problem discussed here a lot since that would mean the kinds of fields where the only jobs requiring a particular degree are within academia itself would have extremely few spaces.

This implies that much of the adjunct problem can be potentially solved even at a departmental level or below (i.e. by individual professors). Both PhD oversupply and outrageously high attrition rates in certain fields can be fixed by departments themselves as long as they make peace with having fewer grad-students. So, there are no institution-level administrators to disparage for a failure to do so.

The mechanism would have to function at the department level then. In my grad program, students get trained for a wide variety of careers with rather unequal demand. As DGS, I have to think about that. One mechanism is the purely financial: faculty who want a grad student have to come up with a few hundred thousand dollars toward the stipend and tuition. If sponsors are willing to pay that much for graduate training, the likelihood of a job at the other end is a lot higher. An alternative is is to get a student with a full-ride external fellowship (again worth several hundred thousand dollars).

The other part is in admission. There are a few meager department resources to allocate to the best applicants. If someone great applies in a less fundable area, but has all the hallmarks of having a distinguished career as one of a handful of people in their field, then I can prioritize making that happen. The onus is on the professor to recruit students of that caliber.

I can't say whether this fixes the adjunct problem, because I don't know which is cause and which is effect: we don't use part-time or temporary adjuncts for teaching, nor do we have students who take that kind of position after finishing.

[dismalist]

My understanding is that, in addition to this, the number of spaces in programs is sometimes determined by their usefulness to the economy. So the total number of underwater basketweaving spaces available is a lot less than the number of electrical engineering spaces. This would solve the adjunct problem discussed here a lot since that would mean the kinds of fields where the only jobs requiring a particular degree are within academia itself would have extremely few spaces.

The economy is not some moloch; it is us. The number of spaces in programs in the US is determined by their usefulness to the people in the programs. It's not as though employment conditions upon graduation are a surprise.

Attempts to control numbers of graduates invariably stem from the wish to raise wages. Lovely, but then lower wages for everybody else.

[marshwiggle]

My understanding is that, in addition to this, the number of spaces in programs is sometimes determined by their usefulness to the economy. So the total number of underwater basketweaving spaces available is a lot less than the number of electrical engineering spaces. This would solve the adjunct problem discussed here a lot since that would mean the kinds of fields where the only jobs requiring a particular degree are within academia itself would have extremely few spaces.

The economy is not some moloch; it is us. The number of spaces in programs in the US is determined by their usefulness to the people in the programs. It's not as though employment conditions upon graduation are a surprise.

Attempts to control numbers of graduates invariably stem from the wish to raise wages. Lovely, but then lower wages for everybody else.

To be clear, my point was in the context of free education. If the argument is that education should be free because it is a public good, then it makes sense that the "public" (via the state) determines what "education" qualifies. So it's logically consistent for places with free education to control the options. On the other hand, if people can choose whatever education they want, there's no obvious evidence that the "public" will benefit by it. For instance, if it doesn't exist somewhere already, some institution could create "Klingon Studies" which might appeal to Trekkies, but which would have no benefit to society as a whole. In that case, there's no reason the public should pay for it.

[dismalist]

My understanding is that, in addition to this, the number of spaces in programs is sometimes determined by their usefulness to the economy. So the total number of underwater basketweaving spaces available is a lot less than the number of electrical engineering spaces. This would solve the adjunct problem discussed here a lot since that would mean the kinds of fields where the only jobs requiring a particular degree are within academia itself would have extremely few spaces.

The economy is not some moloch; it is us. The number of spaces in programs in the US is determined by their usefulness to the people in the programs. It's not as though employment conditions upon graduation are a surprise.

Attempts to control numbers of graduates invariably stem from the wish to raise wages. Lovely, but then lower wages for everybody else.

To be clear, my point was in the context of free education. If the argument is that education should be free because it is a public good, then it makes sense that the "public" (via the state) determines what "education" qualifies. So it's logically consistent for places with free education to control the options. On the other hand, if people can choose whatever education they want, there's no obvious evidence that the "public" will benefit by it. For instance, if it doesn't exist somewhere already, some institution could create "Klingon Studies" which might appeal to Trekkies, but which would have no benefit to society as a whole. In that case, there's no reason the public should pay for it.

Yes. If there is no rationing by money, there must be a different ration coupon.

Parenthetically, education benefits the educated, not the public. The big exception is R&D in the sciences and engineering, but that's PhD stuff. And that is indeed mostly free.

[Wahoo Redux]

Don't really agree with'ya there, Big-D.  I think education is both tangibly and intangibly a public good.

[dismalist]

Don't really agree with'ya there, Big-D.  I think education is both tangibly and intangibly a public good.

Well, some is a public bad! :-)

[marshwiggle]

Don't really agree with'ya there, Big-D.  I think education is both tangibly and intangibly a public good.

I've enjoyed my pandemic-induced efforts to learn to play guitar, but I think anyone hearing me play would be hard-pressed to describe the result as a public good.

[Wahoo Redux]

Don't really agree with'ya there, Big-D.  I think education is both tangibly and intangibly a public good.

Well, some is a public bad! :-)

Sure, the fun part is.  That I will agree!  More public bad everyone!

[Wahoo Redux]

Don't really agree with'ya there, Big-D.  I think education is both tangibly and intangibly a public good.

I've enjoyed my pandemic-induced efforts to learn to play guitar, but I think anyone hearing me play would be hard-pressed to describe the result as a public good.

Ah come on, Marshy, I think of Jimi Hendrix every time I read one of your posts.

[marshwiggle]

Don't really agree with'ya there, Big-D.  I think education is both tangibly and intangibly a public good.

I've enjoyed my pandemic-induced efforts to learn to play guitar, but I think anyone hearing me play would be hard-pressed to describe the result as a public good.

Ah come on, Marshy, I think of Jimi Hendrix every time I read one of your posts.

Yeah, well since he's dead I can probably compete now.