Colleges in Dire Financial Straits

[apl68]

[. . . ]

Likewise, aspiring students pick up that cybersecurity is how many people are making good money in a "new" field.  Those aspiring students also buy into the idea that a college degree in the field will get them that fancy job with the FBI, CIA, or a big corporation.  Those aspiring students don't know about the people who have been already programming and being system admins since they were in middle school who have those cybersecurity jobs and will be their direct competition.  Those aspiring students don't know about the university programs where the big players have partnered to offer co-ops, internships, and project classes so the new graduates already have a couple years of directly relevant experience and that those programs are older than the entering students in this "new" area.  Again, St. Rose may be trying hard, but they are very unlikely to be as good an option as a cybersecurity program that grew out of good other programs in technology/IT/CS and criminal justice.

Used to be every fourth criminal justice major I ran into would say something like "I'm going to be a profiler who catches serial killers" because of the popularity of TV shows like X-Files and CSI. And I'd have to bite my lip to prevent myself from saying "No you're not. There is only one forensic psychologist on the state government's payroll and you definitely don't have the ability to get into, much less complete, a psychology PhD program. If you did, you wouldn't be enrolled here."

I don't know that the market for cyber security majors is as constricted as all that.  My brother, who blew off college when we were youths, then became a career Army NCO, went back to school after he retired from the military and is now in the cyber security department of a nuclear facility (I figure it's best not to ask him too many questions about what he does there...).  He doesn't have a "fancy job" as a department head or anything, but he's making a good living.  As cybersecurity becomes more and more important, I would think that it would be a good field for majors.

That said, if St. Rose doesn't already have a strong IT program they no doubt will indeed be hard-pressed to create a credible cybersecurity major program.

[PScientist]

I don't know that the market for cyber security majors is as constricted as all that. 

I agree.  I was conscripted to be the faculty sponsor for our institution's cybersecurity competition team/club, so I interact with that world a little bit.  At this point, there is a good job in the cybersecurity field for anyone with a computing-related degree, enough motivation to complete an industry certification like CompTIA Security+, and a clean enough background to hold a top secret/SCI clearance.

However, an institution that is trying to start a new program will probably run into trouble hiring qualified cybersecurity faculty at a salary that they can afford.  That is the other side of the hot job market.

[Ruralguy]

This has been our school's problem: We try to chase after "hot" areas, and then only can finally hire people in the area when either:

1. The area is no longer hot.

2. We are able to hire a misanthrope or psycho who couldn't get or hold
a highly compensated job.

[apl68]

This has been our school's problem: We try to chase after "hot" areas, and then only can finally hire people in the area when either:

1. The area is no longer hot.

2. We are able to hire a misanthrope or psycho who couldn't get or hold
a highly compensated job.

That's the thing about hot fields.  You have to be a little bit ahead of the curve to ride it to success.  A purely reactive strategy of looking for already-popular bandwagons to jump on is likely always to be a step or two behind.

The flip side of THAT is that trying to get ahead of the curve could lead to committing lots of resources to a projected Next Big Thing that never actually gets that big.  We've seen some schools on this thread that bet the farm on trying to get ahead of the curve, and we've seen some that obviously tried to jump on too late.  Hard to say sometimes how much of that's bad leadership, and how much is bad luck.  It really does seem to take a certain amount of luck to get it just right.

[marshwiggle]

That's the thing about hot fields.  You have to be a little bit ahead of the curve to ride it to success.  A purely reactive strategy of looking for already-popular bandwagons to jump on is likely always to be a step or two behind.

The flip side of THAT is that trying to get ahead of the curve could lead to committing lots of resources to a projected Next Big Thing that never actually gets that big.  We've seen some schools on this thread that bet the farm on trying to get ahead of the curve, and we've seen some that obviously tried to jump on too late.  Hard to say sometimes how much of that's bad leadership, and how much is bad luck.  It really does seem to take a certain amount of luck to get it just right.

That's why individual departments and faculties have to be pro-active about this. They need to be looking at ways to leverage their existing strengths in anticipation of new things. (Stagnant departments or faculties are doomed........)

[Hegemony]

I went to a talk recently about majors and their relationship to employment. The popular imagination has it that Computer Science is the hot major that will land anyone a job, but in fact it's in the top 15 majors in which graduates fail to find suitable jobs in their field.  (Source: Business Insider, Sept. 9. 2019.) The field with the lowest rate of unemployment is actually religion. (Source: US Census data.) So maybe all those students facing unemployment ought to go back to those little colleges training ministers.

[apl68]

That's the thing about hot fields.  You have to be a little bit ahead of the curve to ride it to success.  A purely reactive strategy of looking for already-popular bandwagons to jump on is likely always to be a step or two behind.

The flip side of THAT is that trying to get ahead of the curve could lead to committing lots of resources to a projected Next Big Thing that never actually gets that big.  We've seen some schools on this thread that bet the farm on trying to get ahead of the curve, and we've seen some that obviously tried to jump on too late.  Hard to say sometimes how much of that's bad leadership, and how much is bad luck.  It really does seem to take a certain amount of luck to get it just right.

That's why individual departments and faculties have to be pro-active about this. They need to be looking at ways to leverage their existing strengths in anticipation of new things. (Stagnant departments or faculties are doomed........)

Right.  It should be what institutions do all along in a changing world, so that they can experiment without having to bet the whole farm in desperation.

[marshwiggle]

That's the thing about hot fields.  You have to be a little bit ahead of the curve to ride it to success.  A purely reactive strategy of looking for already-popular bandwagons to jump on is likely always to be a step or two behind.

The flip side of THAT is that trying to get ahead of the curve could lead to committing lots of resources to a projected Next Big Thing that never actually gets that big.  We've seen some schools on this thread that bet the farm on trying to get ahead of the curve, and we've seen some that obviously tried to jump on too late.  Hard to say sometimes how much of that's bad leadership, and how much is bad luck.  It really does seem to take a certain amount of luck to get it just right.

That's why individual departments and faculties have to be pro-active about this. They need to be looking at ways to leverage their existing strengths in anticipation of new things. (Stagnant departments or faculties are doomed........)

Right.  It should be what institutions do all along in a changing world, so that they can experiment without having to bet the whole farm in desperation.

The parable of the talents, IRL.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

The popular imagination has it that Computer Science is the hot major that will land anyone a job, but in fact it's in the top 15 majors in which graduates fail to find suitable jobs in their field.  (Source: Business Insider, Sept. 9. 2019.)

This statement omits important information from the article: Median income: $99,000.
So, Computer Science graduates have much higher opportunity costs when working outside of their field than, say, Composition and Rhetoric (Median income: $37,800).
https://www.businessinsider.com/college-degrees-with-the-highest-unemployment-rates

That's the thing about hot fields.  You have to be a little bit ahead of the curve to ride it to success.  A purely reactive strategy of looking for already-popular bandwagons to jump on is likely always to be a step or two behind.

Large schools already have most fields covered, so they do not need much strategy to benefit from this cycle.
I have seen department's incoming class going from 125 to 250 over 5 years without any additional faculty. Given that it now dropped to 25, actively chasing the wave with new hires would have been really bad decision long-term.

[Hibush]

That's the thing about hot fields.  You have to be a little bit ahead of the curve to ride it to success.  A purely reactive strategy of looking for already-popular bandwagons to jump on is likely always to be a step or two behind.

Large schools already have most fields covered, so they do not need much strategy to benefit from this cycle.
I have seen department's incoming class going from 125 to 250 over 5 years without any additional faculty. Given that it now dropped to 25, actively chasing the wave with new hires would have been really bad decision long-term.

That is where we hire NTT faculty on a five-year term. If the fad (enrolment bump) is temporary, so is the faculty position. In a hot field, the salary may be really high but it is less risky than going TT even at a much lower salary. If the trend lasts and you need to go TT, then you already have a good person.

[spork]

Why attend a foundering College of Saint Rose when one can attend University at Albany, which is three miles away and probably costs less money?

[polly_mer]

The popular imagination has it that Computer Science is the hot major that will land anyone a job, but in fact it's in the top 15 majors in which graduates fail to find suitable jobs in their field.  (Source: Business Insider, Sept. 9. 2019.)

This statement omits important information from the article: Median income: $99,000.
So, Computer Science graduates have much higher opportunity costs when working outside of their field than, say, Composition and Rhetoric (Median income: $37,800).
https://www.businessinsider.com/college-degrees-with-the-highest-unemployment-rates

Majoring in CS to get a high paying job is another instance of people choosing wrong based on limited information.  Having good programming skills using the modern workflow tools and demonstrated experience working in the relevant kinds of teams generally gets one a good job.  Having the similar sort of experience in any one or two IT fields along with the certificates for which the employer paid generally gets one a good job.

Having a CS degree without the internships, coops, or other direct experience with companies who can hire you or mentors who can work their network for you is just like majoring in a humanities field without having the social capital--the success stories paint a rosier picture than the realities of how little that degree mattered in getting to the next step.  The CS degree itself is much less useful than the experience on how things actually work that includes the solid coursework on why certain things are done that way. 

A CS degree is not a programming degree nor is it an IT degree; those are different fields.  We do a ton of computer work here including high-performance computing and all the programs to go on those computers, but we actually hire very few CS folks.  Instead, we hire many mathematicians, physicists, engineers, chemists, and others who can program and use those programming skills to solve the interesting problems.  We then hire a handful of BS-level CS folks to manage the software development process for the teams of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers.  We hire a handful of graduate-level CS folks to develop new architectures and the tools to leverage those new architectures. 

One of the big red flags for our hiring process is a new CS degree holder who hasn't done substantial internship/coop/research/job experience outside of the classroom.  Taking the standard design courses that involve some design/programming projects is not at all good preparation for working as a programmer, let alone working as one of our few CS experts managing the project team.

The humanities folks who say, it doesn't matter what your major is, are mostly right in this instance, but they didn't follow up with, and that's why you have to get relevant experience before you graduate because employers hire on experience instead of book learning.

[Ruralguy]

Yeah, I do plenty of coding in various languages and with other tools past and present such as Wolfram, IDL, etc.. Only ever took one CS class and it was
in a language I never once coded in after that class. So, I can see why for certain employers (government science facilities, etc.) , a formal CS degree isn't
as important as knowing certain tools and being willing and able to learn new ones. Knowing some IT/operating system and hardware stuff probably wouldn't hurt either.

[mythbuster]

We have a friend who has had a long and very successful career in IT/tech. He actually dropped out of college to pursue this career, as he quickly realized that it was all about your hands on skills, and that many of his CS courses were woefully out of date compared to what we has doing in his spare time. At one point he was in charge of the eBay Beanie Babies server (we had a costume party when he got that promotion!), and now manages the B2B platform for a major global investment firm.

No one has EVER asked him about his lack of a formal degree. So I entirely agree it's all about skills. It's also about connections in the field as he would change jobs about every 6 months during the height of the late 90's tech boom. Often being pulled along as colleagues got poached.

[whynotbc]

Any insight into why cut chemistry as a major? It seems they have one large science department (biology, chemistry, physics, etc. in one department)? They still have a biology major that requires four semesters of chemistry. Pre-health tracks require 1-5 chemistry courses. They also have a biochemistry major that requires 7 chemistry courses in addition to biochemistry. They have a forensics programs that requires at minimum 6 chemistry courses and has a track that requires 3 more semesters of chemistry. They have only 4 tenure line chemistry faculty in that large department. One is organic, so teaches organic chemistry for pre-health, biology, biochemistry, and forensic students. They have a biochemist who likely teaches biochemistry for pre-health, biology, and biochemistry as well as some of the forensic students. Analytical chemist for the analytical courses for forensic students as well as forensic courses. The last is a physical chemist who also teaches inorganic and general chemistry. Biochemistry major at Saint Rose requires two semesters of Physical as does the chemistry track in forensics. Inorganic class cut (no lab) likely but the physical chemist teaching general chemistry and physical chemistry would likely be a full load. The savings then would be fewer adjuncts for general chemistry and focus on   retention in general chemistry to strengthen pre-health, biology, biochemistry, and forensics?