Dubious master's degrees

[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.

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.

I concede all that. What makes it public to me is so many states allow state aid to be used for WGU tuition. A bunch of them in the West, and Indiana (Damn it!).

It really is a shiest business model as you say. You can go pretty cheaply if you are really smart, motivated, don't have a full time job or are a working single parent. They (which in fact are almost all the WGU students) get sucked in and have to pay WAY more than what a student at a CC pays, and for typically a less meaningful degree.

Hate them, I does.

[ciao_yall]

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.

The point is the taxpayer already paid for the 75% (or so) of the education that wasn't borrowed. And some chunk of that debt is interest and fees, so the institution never sees it.

[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.

The point is the taxpayer already paid for the 75% (or so) of the education that wasn't borrowed. And some chunk of that debt is interest and fees, so the institution never sees it.

Which is what I said.

[kaysixteen]

apl, what are you referring to when you say that your MLS dept had a 'ratio of 0.56'?

In any case, some other random points wrt this ongoing discussion:

1) Columbia is an Ivy League school, so even though it may well be quite easy to get into its grad film school, and even if that program is no better than those at other, less prestigious schools, it is reasonable for Patrick from Kansas to assume a) the quality of the Ivy program *will* be better than at Nameless State U, and b)even if it ain't that, the name 'Columbia' on one's Master's will open doors that NSU's will not.

2) Granted that this is not the 90s, it is nonetheless still the case that young people have been socialized to believe that more education = better prospects, and, while this is much less true than it was back then, it is also true that nowadays it is much harder to obtain professional employment, and once obtained, to advance in it, without an advanced degree.   I once had a parent at my Christian school whine to me that his son (11th grade then) and his sons' buddies, all young men from affluent, professional families, were prioritizing fancy-schmancy education because they were also prioritizing earning a lot of samoleans.  This man, my age, had a BA in some biology-related field, from UMass, but, without ever going to grad school, had already advanced to a managerial position in a fancy biotech firm.   I tried to tell the fellow that his son and his son's friends did in fact prioritize obtaining and keeping the same sort of lifestyle they were  raised in, and they knew that they would have to get much more education, both in terms of prestige degrees, and advanced degrees, to have *any reasonable hope* of attaining to the level of their parents.   I do not think, however, that I got through to him.

3) Like it  or not, we will have to get a handle on the enormous educational expenses, largely financed by debt, that we have now imposed on our young adults, who have been asked, whether at public or private schools, to pay much more, adjusted for inflation, than their parents, and especially their grandparents, ever had to, even as that need for college credentials continues to skyrocket.  It should also be the case that we should spend some money reinvigorating places like Youngstown, and scores of other increasingly Trumpified cities, cities that have been hollowed out by supercapitalism, where, nonetheless, the majority of the people do not want, even if they could afford it, a college education.

[jerseyjay]

I think that people misunderstood my point about a Columbia MFA or film degree. The point was that "dubious" means different things. It is not easy to get into Columbia. And a Columbia degree is rigorous and more prestigious than most other degrees. And it does open doors. However, it is very expensive and the doors it opens do not usually pay very well. Because how many MFA or film jobs pay as much as MBA, JD, or MD jobs? Of course there are some who will become millionaires, but that's the exception. The programs' graduates (or at least the ones I read about) were not complaining about the program or its results, but rather about its costs. My point is not that these Ivy League degrees are "dubious" in quality (they are not) but that they are "dubious" in terms of cost vs benefits.

Of course there are more reasons to study than just money. But as a general rule, graduate degrees are really professional degrees. If a high school graduate tells me they are going into debt to pay for an Ivy League BA in philosophy or history or English--that's not necessarily a bad thing because a Harvard or Columbia degree in anything will open doors. (Although I still think that too much student debt is bad thing in general.) But an MA or PhD is a specialized degree usually aimed at specific jobs.

So my point was, which of the following is more "dubious"?

A) An MFA from Columbia that is really good but whose cost is much greater than many graduates' ability to pay;
B) An MA in liberal arts from a local state school that is not academically rigorous, is paid for by students' employers, and helps them get a raise at work;
C) An MA in history that is academically rigorous but does not really help most students get a job;

All of these are "legitimate" degrees, but they are also "dubious"--depending on your perspective.

[marshwiggle]

So my point was, which of the following is more "dubious"?

A) An MFA from Columbia that is really good but whose cost is much greater than many graduates' ability to pay;

That's the students' problem, not the institution's. (Unless the institution is suggesting in their marketing materials for the program that graduates typically go on to make huge amounts of money. And in that case, the problem is the fraudulent marketing.)

B) An MA in liberal arts from a local state school that is not academically rigorous, is paid for by students' employers, and helps them get a raise at work;

This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to game the system from both sides. Employees (such as teachers, paid by the government), get raises based on "advanced degrees", without having any proof that the degrees have improved their teaching, and so institutions produce "advanced degrees" that don't really have to teach anything but get paid for by the same government that pays the employers.

This is definitely dubious.

C) An MA in history that is academically rigorous but does not really help most students get a job;

Same as the first case above. If there's a problem, it's about how the program is marketed.

[apl68]

apl, what are you referring to when you say that your MLS dept had a 'ratio of 0.56'?

The article has links to tables that rate different academic programs based on a ratio of how much the degree costs at that school to what the average graduate of the program who is working in the field is making two years (IIRC) after graduation.  So, if a school's degree typically costs a student $12,000 in tuition and fees, and the average student who gets a job in the relevant field is making $24,000, the ratio would be 0.5.  If a degree costs $48,000 and the average graduate is making $24,000, then the ratio would be 2.0. 

Anything over 1.0--meaning it costs as much to get a professional degree as a new member of the profession could typically make in a year--is considered high.  Programs like Columbia's film school have ratios as high as 6.0--a debt level which pretty much guarantees student loan defaults in the long run.

[jerseyjay]

Marshwiggle, if I interpret correctly,  argues that degrees that are rigorous academically but whose graduates do not earn enough to pay for them (e.g., a Columbia film degree or a MA in history) are not dubious while a less rigorous degree that leaves the graduate in little debt and probably with a pay raise is dubious.

I can see the logic in this, but I also could make the opposite argument: degrees that are academically valuable but economically worthless are dubious. In this case, these degrees are essentially luxury goods. Certainly a yacht, a private jet, or a thoroughbred race horse is not "dubious" in the sense that they are real (assuming that there is no fraud). If you want to have fun on a yacht, a private jet, or in racing ponies, and you have the cash, knock yourself out. But they are consumption goods for rich people, not really investments. (It is my understanding that the maintenance costs of each of these outstrips their value, which tends to depreciate quickly.) Similarly, if you want to spend tens of thousands of dollars studying art or film, good for you; but you shouldn't claim that this is a way to a good paying job. The problem is, Master's degrees are conceived as investments, not luxury consumption. So these degrees are legitimate in one sense, but dubious in another sense.

If the local community college were to raise its tuition fees to one million dollars per credit, would the AA degree be legitimate or dubious? The actual quality of the degree would not become worse (and might even become better with the increased money available), but its value relative to cost would plummet. Similarly, if Columbia would halve or even eliminate its tuition fees, the film degree would not lose rigor (assuming that the school subsidized it with money from higher-income programs) but its value would increase. In this sense dubious is not something intrinsic to the academic degree itself, but a result of institutional decisions.

In terms of the MA for teachers. On one level, it is possible to view this as a giant scam by the government--a scam that at the end of the day is played out on taxpayers (who pay for the MA program, the tuition reimbursement, and the higher teacher salaries). But you can also make the case that it is legitimate and that it is not really the job of the school board to parse each program to find out how much value it adds. And for the school board, increased effectiveness in the classroom is only one measurement of value of the degree. Being able to say that 90 per cent of teachers (or whatever) have advanced degrees is also valuable. And perhaps this is a way to keep motivated teachers without raising the base salary. So, again, it can be dubious, but also legitimate.

My point is that a degree can be dubious in more ways than just being from a diploma mill.

[marshwiggle]

Marshwiggle, if I interpret correctly,  argues that degrees that are rigorous academically but whose graduates do not earn enough to pay for them (e.g., a Columbia film degree or a MA in history) are not dubious while a less rigorous degree that leaves the graduate in little debt and probably with a pay raise is dubious.

I can see the logic in this, but I also could make the opposite argument: degrees that are academically valuable but economically worthless are dubious. In this case, these degrees are essentially luxury goods. Certainly a yacht, a private jet, or a thoroughbred race horse is not "dubious" in the sense that they are real (assuming that there is no fraud). If you want to have fun on a yacht, a private jet, or in racing ponies, and you have the cash, knock yourself out. But they are consumption goods for rich people, not really investments. (It is my understanding that the maintenance costs of each of these outstrips their value, which tends to depreciate quickly.) Similarly, if you want to spend tens of thousands of dollars studying art or film, good for you; but you shouldn't claim that this is a way to a good paying job. The problem is, Master's degrees are conceived as investments, not luxury consumption. So these degrees are legitimate in one sense, but dubious in another sense.

Fair enough. That's a good distinction. Although again I would focus more on how institutions market their programs. Queen Elizabeth has a yacht, but it gets used for all kinds of formal functions, so even "luxury consumption" items may arguably have real usefulness for a very small number of people.

In terms of the MA for teachers. On one level, it is possible to view this as a giant scam by the government--a scam that at the end of the day is played out on taxpayers (who pay for the MA program, the tuition reimbursement, and the higher teacher salaries). But you can also make the case that it is legitimate and that it is not really the job of the school board to parse each program to find out how much value it adds. And for the school board, increased effectiveness in the classroom is only one measurement of value of the degree. Being able to say that 90 per cent of teachers (or whatever) have advanced degrees is also valuable.

My understanding is that in Finland, teachers are highly paid and respected, and their degrees really reflect expertise in their subject areas. (Teacher's college is very competitive, and only top academic students get in.)

In the example above, it's not clear (except as PR) how a board saying 90 percent of teachers have "advanced" degrees has value, if the degrees don't really mean anything.

[lightning]

Ugh. I'm starting to get ads for MA programs in the Liberal Arts, including one from the University of Chicago. It never ends . . . . .

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

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.

360k debt also suggests that, besides prestige, this program bought him two years of quite carefree life.
According to the website annual MFA tuition + fees at Columbia are just under 75k. So, over two years it leaves over 200k to be spent on living expenses - well above median household income even in New York.
I actually surprised that he was allowed to borrow this much. Does somebody know how the "cost of attendance" is calculated?
Room and board values on Colombia's website are too low to warrant borrowing this much money.

[mleok]

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.

360k debt also suggests that, besides prestige, this program bought him two years of quite carefree life.
According to the website annual MFA tuition + fees at Columbia are just under 75k. So, over two years it leaves over 200k to be spent on living expenses - well above median household income even in New York.
I actually surprised that he was allowed to borrow this much. Does somebody know how the "cost of attendance" is calculated?
Room and board values on Colombia's website are too low to warrant borrowing this much money.

It looks like the MFA takes up to five years to obtain, but only the first two years involve formal instruction, and the last few years are a bit like the thesis years of a PhD.

https://arts.columbia.edu/tuition

On the tuition page, they distinguish between the fees in the first two years, and for the Research Arts component (years 3-5).

But, another issues is that since the loan repayments are indexed to income, they can be negatively amortized, which is to say that the principal amount can increase because the interest exceeds the payments.

[mamselle]

For those who don't know, the MFA in the arts is a terminal degree.

After that, the scope and depth of your own specific works (measured by critical acclaim and other yardsticks) yield your credentials.

An MA in an "Arts/Dance/Theater/Lit Studies" is often a 'lite' program, so one wants to beware of those if one is hoping for a gallery, dance company, symphony, or publisher to pick you up based on that, alone.

M.

[apl68]

For those who don't know, the MFA in the arts is a terminal degree.

After that, the scope and depth of your own specific works (measured by critical acclaim and other yardsticks) yield your credentials.

An MA in an "Arts/Dance/Theater/Lit Studies" is often a 'lite' program, so one wants to beware of those if one is hoping for a gallery, dance company, symphony, or publisher to pick you up based on that, alone.

M.

That's interesting.  Having never studied in this field, I didn't know the significance of the different types of degree titles.  If it makes a difference to potential employers or clients, then students certainly need to be made aware of the difference before they commit to the program.

[mamselle]

Yes. Bad example: A very good dance instructor at a conservatory, wanting to advance himself, took an MA program and thought he was home and dry.

They didn't even look at his CV for the department director's position.

He was a very bitter, unhappy camper.

M.