Dubious master's degrees

[jimbogumbo]

Western Govenor's University has a Math "MS" leading to licensing to teach at a University or dual credit high school teacher. Every course is a standard course in an undergrad math degree. Every.Damn.One.

[Aster]

Western Governors University is in the same category as University of Phoenix, Keiser University, Southern New Hampshire University, etc...

I would not look at these private businesses as positive role models for the civil service mission that Higher Education is designed around.

[jimbogumbo]

Western Governors University is in the same category as University of Phoenix, Keiser University, Southern New Hampshire University, etc...

I would not look at these private businesses as positive role models for the civil service mission that Higher Education is designed around.

Not quite. WGU is a public university, and was from the beginning. Their teaching credentials are widely accepted throughout the western US, and in my ridiculous Midwestern state. As the person who approves dual credit teachers on my campus I have refused to allow this one.

And, interthreadlity, let us not speak of the odious Purdue Global.

[Wahoo Redux]

From the perspective of an academic, I tend to think that most master's degrees in the humanities or social sciences are somewhat dubious. Not that they are not academically legitimate, but that as a degree, they do not serve much purpose.

We have one of these programs I am afraid----I posted about it somewhere before.

We get a handful of graduate students, of which one or two a year should be anywhere near a grad program.  When I have asked faculty what our grad students do with their degrees, no one seems to know.  A number of them will be adjuncts at our very lackluster school.  Some are indeed high school teachers getting a pay raise----but I am not sure this is illegitimate; at least they are exposed to new things which they can presumably take into the classroom and are forced to do some additional academic work to hone their skills...although it is well known that many of these people would never pass muster in a legitimate grad program.

Actually, I was a chair of one master's project (not a thesis---we don't require that) and the work was simply terrible.  I was told, essentially, that we pass our students after a certain amount of time under almost all circumstances, and this person was actually NOT the worst grad student in the program by a long shot.  The whole thing should be shut down, in my opinion.

I would push back on the criticism of creative writing programs.  Columbia is an exception.  It can leverage its Ivy reputation into those hefty tuition bills, but it is a powerhouse of published talent.  The Columbia name carries a lot of cachet.  Agents routinely stalk their graduates.  Most creative writing programs have some sort of teaching stipend or other fellowships----I didn't pay a dime for my MFA or PhD.

And remember, education is not just about a job.  We've become so corporatized that this is the way we automatically think.  A lot of creative writers enter into the program thinking they will be the next Faulker or Eliot...and then perhaps not set the literary world on fire, leave academia professionally, but continue to produce art for the rest of their lives (although many do not).

I think we have our embarrassingly bad program (not the worst in the university either) because it brings in a little bit or money, and we can call ourselves a "graduate program."  Dubious, very dubious.

[apl68]

So, how many of you are seeing the dubious master's degrees (article in the Chronicle)? At my R1 I've seen a few that make me wonder, with new titles that chase current market conditions. I wonder how long they'll last.

"dubiousness" is a continuum from "good program (academically), but there is no market locally for this number of graduates every year" to "completely worthless degree at a tremendous cost".
Side note: The Chronicle's article feels like a really amateurish follow-up to the month-old WSJ article series

A WSJ series that I, frustratingly, was not able to access.  Our library has a print subscription, but when I combed through the issues the articles weren't there.  And I can't access anything at WSJ online.

[ciao_yall]

This should be a free link to the WSJ article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/financially-hobbled-for-life-the-elite-masters-degrees-that-dont-pay-off-11625752773?st=hch9ir5jlku2j1m&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

I haven't read it. Enough with the WSJ and their anti-education propaganda. I only take it because there is a lot of good content for my students.

[lightning]

This should be a free link to the WSJ article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/financially-hobbled-for-life-the-elite-masters-degrees-that-dont-pay-off-11625752773?st=hch9ir5jlku2j1m&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

I haven't read it. Enough with the WSJ and their anti-education propaganda. I only take it because there is a lot of good content for my students.

A lot of Columbia Film grads are in it for the prestige. They want to look good to their peers. Or they want to validate themselves in some way. A lot of them come from undergrad programs that are not so prestigious, and going to Columbia, allows them to re-invent themselves. Getting into Columbia as an undergrad is very difficult. Getting into Columbia as a grad student is much easier, relative to undergrad, especially via the film program. The story of Patrick Clement sums up a lot of similar student stories from Columbia film school. He gets to call himself a Columbia student. You can bet he told his high school and hometown peers. It was the proudest day of his life for him and his family when he was accepted. Was it worth the $300,000+ in debt? From our wise cynical vantage point, of course not. But to Patrick and students like him, it made perfect sense.

That was the case for Columbia film MFA student Patrick Clement, who attended community college in California before transferring to the University of Kansas for his bachelor's degree.

"As a poor kid and a high-school dropout, there was an attraction to getting an Ivy League master's degree," said Mr. Clement, 41. He graduated in 2020 from Columbia, borrowing more than $360,000 in federal loans for the degree. He is casting for an independent film, he said. To pay the bills, he teaches film at a community college and runs an antique shop.


Film is a lot like creative writing. Even though it's very demanding and requires a lot of talent and hard work, everyone thinks they can do it anyway, and there are more than enough schools out there like Columbia, who will agree with them and allow them to pursue prestige via a degree program that has open-ended admission requirements. 

For students like Patrick Clement and others, the allure of Columbia is irresistible.

This pursuit of prestige/validation reminds me of law schools 15-20 years ago, but a heck of a lot more "fun" than reading a bunch of stuff.

[apl68]

This should be a free link to the WSJ article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/financially-hobbled-for-life-the-elite-masters-degrees-that-dont-pay-off-11625752773?st=hch9ir5jlku2j1m&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

I haven't read it. Enough with the WSJ and their anti-education propaganda. I only take it because there is a lot of good content for my students.

Thank you for the link!  I was glad to have a chance to read the article.

I know what you mean about newspapers that have a lot of good content, and yet take stances on certain issues that are hard to condone.  I feel the same way about...well, all the big nationally-prominent newspapers, especially the NYT (although sometimes the WSJ isn't far behind).

[apl68]

This should be a free link to the WSJ article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/financially-hobbled-for-life-the-elite-masters-degrees-that-dont-pay-off-11625752773?st=hch9ir5jlku2j1m&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

I haven't read it. Enough with the WSJ and their anti-education propaganda. I only take it because there is a lot of good content for my students.

A lot of Columbia Film grads are in it for the prestige. They want to look good to their peers. Or they want to validate themselves in some way. A lot of them come from undergrad programs that are not so prestigious, and going to Columbia, allows them to re-invent themselves. Getting into Columbia as an undergrad is very difficult. Getting into Columbia as a grad student is much easier, relative to undergrad, especially via the film program. The story of Patrick Clement sums up a lot of similar student stories from Columbia film school. He gets to call himself a Columbia student. You can bet he told his high school and hometown peers. It was the proudest day of his life for him and his family when he was accepted. Was it worth the $300,000+ in debt? From our wise cynical vantage point, of course not. But to Patrick and students like him, it made perfect sense.

That was the case for Columbia film MFA student Patrick Clement, who attended community college in California before transferring to the University of Kansas for his bachelor's degree.

"As a poor kid and a high-school dropout, there was an attraction to getting an Ivy League master's degree," said Mr. Clement, 41. He graduated in 2020 from Columbia, borrowing more than $360,000 in federal loans for the degree. He is casting for an independent film, he said. To pay the bills, he teaches film at a community college and runs an antique shop.


Film is a lot like creative writing. Even though it's very demanding and requires a lot of talent and hard work, everyone thinks they can do it anyway, and there are more than enough schools out there like Columbia, who will agree with them and allow them to pursue prestige via a degree program that has open-ended admission requirements. 

For students like Patrick Clement and others, the allure of Columbia is irresistible.

This pursuit of prestige/validation reminds me of law schools 15-20 years ago, but a heck of a lot more "fun" than reading a bunch of stuff.

There were a lot of interesting figures for different programs and their cost vs. likely income ratio.  Looks like Masters of Library Science is a pretty good bet.  Only a few programs cost more than a graduate can expect to earn, and those don't cost drastically more (My MLS alma mater had a ratio of about 0.56).  Almost all programs listed in the fine arts cost way more than graduates' likely earnings.  Not a surprise, really, but interesting to see it quantified.

You know, I'm an advocate of federal student loan forgiveness efforts in principle.  But stories like Mr. Patrick Clement's, of students who ran up debts they'll never be able to pay off--that the taxpayer will end up having to eat--getting a degree that seems to be more about prestige and ego than about getting a good general education or making a fair living, are kind of infuriating.  I don't see any more justice in the federal government offering essentially unlimited subsidies to dubious programs at elite universities than in the way they've spent so much taxpayer money essentially subsidizing crooked for-profit schools.

[ciao_yall]

This should be a free link to the WSJ article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/financially-hobbled-for-life-the-elite-masters-degrees-that-dont-pay-off-11625752773?st=hch9ir5jlku2j1m&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

I haven't read it. Enough with the WSJ and their anti-education propaganda. I only take it because there is a lot of good content for my students.

A lot of Columbia Film grads are in it for the prestige. They want to look good to their peers. Or they want to validate themselves in some way. A lot of them come from undergrad programs that are not so prestigious, and going to Columbia, allows them to re-invent themselves. Getting into Columbia as an undergrad is very difficult. Getting into Columbia as a grad student is much easier, relative to undergrad, especially via the film program. The story of Patrick Clement sums up a lot of similar student stories from Columbia film school. He gets to call himself a Columbia student. You can bet he told his high school and hometown peers. It was the proudest day of his life for him and his family when he was accepted. Was it worth the $300,000+ in debt? From our wise cynical vantage point, of course not. But to Patrick and students like him, it made perfect sense.

That was the case for Columbia film MFA student Patrick Clement, who attended community college in California before transferring to the University of Kansas for his bachelor's degree.

"As a poor kid and a high-school dropout, there was an attraction to getting an Ivy League master's degree," said Mr. Clement, 41. He graduated in 2020 from Columbia, borrowing more than $360,000 in federal loans for the degree. He is casting for an independent film, he said. To pay the bills, he teaches film at a community college and runs an antique shop.


Film is a lot like creative writing. Even though it's very demanding and requires a lot of talent and hard work, everyone thinks they can do it anyway, and there are more than enough schools out there like Columbia, who will agree with them and allow them to pursue prestige via a degree program that has open-ended admission requirements. 

For students like Patrick Clement and others, the allure of Columbia is irresistible.

This pursuit of prestige/validation reminds me of law schools 15-20 years ago, but a heck of a lot more "fun" than reading a bunch of stuff.

There were a lot of interesting figures for different programs and their cost vs. likely income ratio.  Looks like Masters of Library Science is a pretty good bet.  Only a few programs cost more than a graduate can expect to earn, and those don't cost drastically more (My MLS alma mater had a ratio of about 0.56).  Almost all programs listed in the fine arts cost way more than graduates' likely earnings.  Not a surprise, really, but interesting to see it quantified.

You know, I'm an advocate of federal student loan forgiveness efforts in principle.  But stories like Mr. Patrick Clement's, of students who ran up debts they'll never be able to pay off--that the taxpayer will end up having to eat--getting a degree that seems to be more about prestige and ego than about getting a good general education or making a fair living, are kind of infuriating.  I don't see any more justice in the federal government offering essentially unlimited subsidies to dubious programs at elite universities than in the way they've spent so much taxpayer money essentially subsidizing crooked for-profit schools.

Well, would you agree that the pursuit of education provides generalizable skills that make a graduate successful across many careers?

He could take some of his skills (and network) and work in many fields besides hoping to hit the jackpot  with his indy film making it to Sundance. And he is teaching good skills - analytical, writing, etc to his students at the CC.

So even though we have individualized the "cost" of his education and dropped it on him, we have socialized the broader benefits of education.

I mean we could save a lot of money stopping our public school system at 5th grade, or even 12th grade. But then where would we be as an economy or a society?

[marshwiggle]

You know, I'm an advocate of federal student loan forgiveness efforts in principle.  But stories like Mr. Patrick Clement's, of students who ran up debts they'll never be able to pay off--that the taxpayer will end up having to eat--getting a degree that seems to be more about prestige and ego than about getting a good general education or making a fair living, are kind of infuriating.  I don't see any more justice in the federal government offering essentially unlimited subsidies to dubious programs at elite universities than in the way they've spent so much taxpayer money essentially subsidizing crooked for-profit schools.

Well, would you agree that the pursuit of education provides generalizable skills that make a graduate successful across many careers?

He could take some of his skills (and network) and work in many fields besides hoping to hit the jackpot  with his indy film making it to Sundance. And he is teaching good skills - analytical, writing, etc to his students at the CC.

So even though we have individualized the "cost" of his education and dropped it on him, we have socialized the broader benefits of education.

I mean we could save a lot of money stopping our public school system at 5th grade, or even 12th grade. But then where would we be as an economy or a society?

By this argument, education could go for 20, or 30, or 40 years at taxpayer expense. Just because there is some infinitesimal "socialized" benefit to something doesn't make it worth public funding. Even as I am a big fan of public healthcare, it means that there have to be decisions made about what can be covered and what cannot, because there is a finite limit to even government resources.

[apl68]

This should be a free link to the WSJ article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/financially-hobbled-for-life-the-elite-masters-degrees-that-dont-pay-off-11625752773?st=hch9ir5jlku2j1m&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

I haven't read it. Enough with the WSJ and their anti-education propaganda. I only take it because there is a lot of good content for my students.

A lot of Columbia Film grads are in it for the prestige. They want to look good to their peers. Or they want to validate themselves in some way. A lot of them come from undergrad programs that are not so prestigious, and going to Columbia, allows them to re-invent themselves. Getting into Columbia as an undergrad is very difficult. Getting into Columbia as a grad student is much easier, relative to undergrad, especially via the film program. The story of Patrick Clement sums up a lot of similar student stories from Columbia film school. He gets to call himself a Columbia student. You can bet he told his high school and hometown peers. It was the proudest day of his life for him and his family when he was accepted. Was it worth the $300,000+ in debt? From our wise cynical vantage point, of course not. But to Patrick and students like him, it made perfect sense.

That was the case for Columbia film MFA student Patrick Clement, who attended community college in California before transferring to the University of Kansas for his bachelor's degree.

"As a poor kid and a high-school dropout, there was an attraction to getting an Ivy League master's degree," said Mr. Clement, 41. He graduated in 2020 from Columbia, borrowing more than $360,000 in federal loans for the degree. He is casting for an independent film, he said. To pay the bills, he teaches film at a community college and runs an antique shop.


Film is a lot like creative writing. Even though it's very demanding and requires a lot of talent and hard work, everyone thinks they can do it anyway, and there are more than enough schools out there like Columbia, who will agree with them and allow them to pursue prestige via a degree program that has open-ended admission requirements. 

For students like Patrick Clement and others, the allure of Columbia is irresistible.

This pursuit of prestige/validation reminds me of law schools 15-20 years ago, but a heck of a lot more "fun" than reading a bunch of stuff.

There were a lot of interesting figures for different programs and their cost vs. likely income ratio.  Looks like Masters of Library Science is a pretty good bet.  Only a few programs cost more than a graduate can expect to earn, and those don't cost drastically more (My MLS alma mater had a ratio of about 0.56).  Almost all programs listed in the fine arts cost way more than graduates' likely earnings.  Not a surprise, really, but interesting to see it quantified.

You know, I'm an advocate of federal student loan forgiveness efforts in principle.  But stories like Mr. Patrick Clement's, of students who ran up debts they'll never be able to pay off--that the taxpayer will end up having to eat--getting a degree that seems to be more about prestige and ego than about getting a good general education or making a fair living, are kind of infuriating.  I don't see any more justice in the federal government offering essentially unlimited subsidies to dubious programs at elite universities than in the way they've spent so much taxpayer money essentially subsidizing crooked for-profit schools.

Well, would you agree that the pursuit of education provides generalizable skills that make a graduate successful across many careers?

He could take some of his skills (and network) and work in many fields besides hoping to hit the jackpot  with his indy film making it to Sundance. And he is teaching good skills - analytical, writing, etc to his students at the CC.

So even though we have individualized the "cost" of his education and dropped it on him, we have socialized the broader benefits of education.

I mean we could save a lot of money stopping our public school system at 5th grade, or even 12th grade. But then where would we be as an economy or a society?

He could have done all of these things for a fraction of the cost at a different school.  I happen to be very pro-education.  I even still hold the unfashionable belief that students should feel free to major as undergrads in humanities fields--it's heartbreaking to me to see the widespread abandonment of any sort of humanities education at so many undergrad institutions.  But $300,000 for a single student's education, to be picked up (ultimately) by the taxpayer?  This is neither reasonable nor sustainable.  Institutions of higher education should not be encouraged to take the federal student loan program as a blank check for absolutely any amount they want to charge.

[Aster]

Western Governors University is in the same category as University of Phoenix, Keiser University, Southern New Hampshire University, etc...

I would not look at these private businesses as positive role models for the civil service mission that Higher Education is designed around.

Not quite. WGU is a public university, and was from the beginning. Their teaching credentials are widely accepted throughout the western US, and in my ridiculous Midwestern state. As the person who approves dual credit teachers on my campus I have refused to allow this one.

It is a private, online university, created under weird circumstances in the late 1990's that may lead some to believe that it is a public university. But it's not. It's less sheisty than most of the other edu-business institutions and it's doesn't price gouge out the whazoo like most of the rest of its brethren, but its operating model is closest to that of the for-profit businesses.

[ciao_yall]

This should be a free link to the WSJ article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/financially-hobbled-for-life-the-elite-masters-degrees-that-dont-pay-off-11625752773?st=hch9ir5jlku2j1m&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

I haven't read it. Enough with the WSJ and their anti-education propaganda. I only take it because there is a lot of good content for my students.

A lot of Columbia Film grads are in it for the prestige. They want to look good to their peers. Or they want to validate themselves in some way. A lot of them come from undergrad programs that are not so prestigious, and going to Columbia, allows them to re-invent themselves. Getting into Columbia as an undergrad is very difficult. Getting into Columbia as a grad student is much easier, relative to undergrad, especially via the film program. The story of Patrick Clement sums up a lot of similar student stories from Columbia film school. He gets to call himself a Columbia student. You can bet he told his high school and hometown peers. It was the proudest day of his life for him and his family when he was accepted. Was it worth the $300,000+ in debt? From our wise cynical vantage point, of course not. But to Patrick and students like him, it made perfect sense.

That was the case for Columbia film MFA student Patrick Clement, who attended community college in California before transferring to the University of Kansas for his bachelor's degree.

"As a poor kid and a high-school dropout, there was an attraction to getting an Ivy League master's degree," said Mr. Clement, 41. He graduated in 2020 from Columbia, borrowing more than $360,000 in federal loans for the degree. He is casting for an independent film, he said. To pay the bills, he teaches film at a community college and runs an antique shop.


Film is a lot like creative writing. Even though it's very demanding and requires a lot of talent and hard work, everyone thinks they can do it anyway, and there are more than enough schools out there like Columbia, who will agree with them and allow them to pursue prestige via a degree program that has open-ended admission requirements. 

For students like Patrick Clement and others, the allure of Columbia is irresistible.

This pursuit of prestige/validation reminds me of law schools 15-20 years ago, but a heck of a lot more "fun" than reading a bunch of stuff.

There were a lot of interesting figures for different programs and their cost vs. likely income ratio.  Looks like Masters of Library Science is a pretty good bet.  Only a few programs cost more than a graduate can expect to earn, and those don't cost drastically more (My MLS alma mater had a ratio of about 0.56).  Almost all programs listed in the fine arts cost way more than graduates' likely earnings.  Not a surprise, really, but interesting to see it quantified.

You know, I'm an advocate of federal student loan forgiveness efforts in principle.  But stories like Mr. Patrick Clement's, of students who ran up debts they'll never be able to pay off--that the taxpayer will end up having to eat--getting a degree that seems to be more about prestige and ego than about getting a good general education or making a fair living, are kind of infuriating.  I don't see any more justice in the federal government offering essentially unlimited subsidies to dubious programs at elite universities than in the way they've spent so much taxpayer money essentially subsidizing crooked for-profit schools.

Well, would you agree that the pursuit of education provides generalizable skills that make a graduate successful across many careers?

He could take some of his skills (and network) and work in many fields besides hoping to hit the jackpot  with his indy film making it to Sundance. And he is teaching good skills - analytical, writing, etc to his students at the CC.

So even though we have individualized the "cost" of his education and dropped it on him, we have socialized the broader benefits of education.

I mean we could save a lot of money stopping our public school system at 5th grade, or even 12th grade. But then where would we be as an economy or a society?

He could have done all of these things for a fraction of the cost at a different school.  I happen to be very pro-education.  I even still hold the unfashionable belief that students should feel free to major as undergrads in humanities fields--it's heartbreaking to me to see the widespread abandonment of any sort of humanities education at so many undergrad institutions.  But $300,000 for a single student's education, to be picked up (ultimately) by the taxpayer?  This is neither reasonable nor sustainable.  Institutions of higher education should not be encouraged to take the federal student loan program as a blank check for absolutely any amount they want to charge.

A fraction of the cost or a fraction of the price? Theoretically the only difference between public and private universities should be the fact that the taxpayer picks up some of the tab of the public university, while the student/family pays "full retail" at private universities.

Now, obviously there are differences in facilities, research agendas, federal grants, and so on so it isn't that black and white. But saying someone can "save money for the taxpayer by going to public universities" missed the point.

[dismalist]

But saying someone can "save money for the taxpayer by going to public universities" missed the point.

Public education is cheaper for the taxpayer if someone decides to bail out student loan debt.