NBC News: Exposing the College-is-for-Everyone "fantasy"

[Wahoo Redux]

I have always argued that college is not really job training except for the obvious training needed for some professions (STEM primarily).

But alas, my philosophy is simply overrun by mass sentiment.

NBC News: Can Biden expose the 'college is for everyone' fantasy?

[mahagonny]

"If you were to stop a group of students on the street and ask them if a college degree is necessary to secure a successful career path in this country, the answer is likely to be yes. Interestingly, just how often can depend on the group's demographics. A recent Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that "minority teens are more likely than white teens to say graduating from college is important to them." While 73 percent and 59 percent of Asian and Black teenagers, respectively, believe the cost of higher education is worth the sacrifice, only 55 percent of their white counterparts agree with this sentiment.

What accounts for this perception gap?"

Well, off the top of my head I'd say...only the white people get to borrow money to pay for the privilege of feeling guilty for living and studying on land they stole.

Somebody forgot that attending college is not required by law. Shucks.

As Bill Maher said, the democrats' (almost synonymous with academia) approach to winning swing votes today is like a guy trying to pick up a girl by saying 'you sure are ugly. Wanna dance?'

3...2...1...'it's more complicated than that.'  'We don't need those students anyway.'   'Hey, where did everybody go?'

ETA: if you're a white guy aged 18 with a not-wealthy family and middling SAT scores other options are beginning to compete.

[marshwiggle]

From the article:

Biden put it this way during a speech after the House passed the bill: "Somewhere along the way, we stopped investing in ourselves. We stopped investing in our people. And we've risked losing our edge as a nation."

No matter which side of the political aisle you're on, I think most of us can agree with that statement.

Call me a skeptic, but it's not clear that Biden's quote specifically refers to directing people away from degrees into other types of programs. "Investing in ourselves" is hardly definitive.

A recent Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that "minority teens are more likely than white teens to say graduating from college is important to them." While 73 percent and 59 percent of Asian and Black teenagers, respectively, believe the cost of higher education is worth the sacrifice, only 55 percent of their white counterparts agree with this sentiment.

What accounts for this perception gap? The answer could be partially grounded in myths about earnings and advancement potential that have historically surrounded so-called trade jobs. Students who were labeled as non-college-bound — disproportionately underserved students and students of color — were denied placement in advanced classes or put on the vocational education track; a track sullied with lies about students' capacities or learning abilities that cast shadows and doubts on their current and future prospects, professional and otherwise.

Here's the Gordian knot; how can the government be seen as "inclusive" when it requires directing more people to the kinds of programs that have gotten a reputation as discriminatory? (Even if the mix of people is more appropriate, the optics will work against them.)

[Hibush]

What about this story is an "exposé"? What part was previously unknown?

To me it reads like a businessman advancing the value of the services his company provides.
"James Rhyu is Chief Executive Officer of Stride, Inc., a leading provider of online and blended learning programs."

Understanding where you company stands among similar providers is good practice. Engaging the public when someone important talks about the value of those services is good sense.

I have no opinion about Stride per se, but having multiple career-training routes is hardly controversial.

[Caracal]

From the article:

Biden put it this way during a speech after the House passed the bill: "Somewhere along the way, we stopped investing in ourselves. We stopped investing in our people. And we've risked losing our edge as a nation."

No matter which side of the political aisle you're on, I think most of us can agree with that statement.

Call me a skeptic, but it's not clear that Biden's quote specifically refers to directing people away from degrees into other types of programs. "Investing in ourselves" is hardly definitive.

A recent Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that "minority teens are more likely than white teens to say graduating from college is important to them." While 73 percent and 59 percent of Asian and Black teenagers, respectively, believe the cost of higher education is worth the sacrifice, only 55 percent of their white counterparts agree with this sentiment.

What accounts for this perception gap? The answer could be partially grounded in myths about earnings and advancement potential that have historically surrounded so-called trade jobs. Students who were labeled as non-college-bound — disproportionately underserved students and students of color — were denied placement in advanced classes or put on the vocational education track; a track sullied with lies about students' capacities or learning abilities that cast shadows and doubts on their current and future prospects, professional and otherwise.

Here's the Gordian knot; how can the government be seen as "inclusive" when it requires directing more people to the kinds of programs that have gotten a reputation as discriminatory? (Even if the mix of people is more appropriate, the optics will work against them.)

I'm perplexed. The earnings premium for college graduates is very real and quite substantial. I can't really see how it makes sense to treat students who respond to this gap by valuing a college degree as if they are confused.

It seems like you have the problem backwards. If you believe that too many people are going to college because of a well grounded belief that getting a college degree will be a huge advantage, you can't start by trying to persuade people that they are wrong. You need to create programs that allow people to acquire skills allowing them to enter into professions where talented and ambitious people can do well, make a good living and have possibilities for career advancement.

Whenever this gets discussed, there's a lot of paternalistic attitudes here about all of these people who must just be confused because they don't understand that college isn't for them. If you actually want to create some different sort of system, it would need to be build on choice, possibility and freedom, not just in the sales pitch, but in the reality.

[Parasaurolophus]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to attend a college or university--for one course, for a degree, whatever--should be able to do so, and should be able to do so without taking on crushing levels of debt. Not everyone is going to get an A, but I suspect that interest in university-level subjects is a lot higher--including among those who aren't university-aged and those who've gone into a skilled trade or even just been stuck in the service industry--than we think.

I'm also leery of the suggestion that we should be working to shunt "some people" away from universities and into "trades" or non-skilled occupations.


Not everyone wants to go to college, but IMO college should be "for" anyone.

[Sun_Worshiper]

College isn't for everybody, but it is the surest ticket to the middle class and we should be educating more people, both for the good of those people and for the good of our economy and society (human infrastructure is a real thing). Many of the people who college is supposedly not for have simply missed out on a quality pre-college education, leaving them poorly equipped for the college-level.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to attend a college or university--for one course, for a degree, whatever--should be able to do so, and should be able to do so without taking on crushing levels of debt. Not everyone is going to get an A, but I suspect that interest in university-level subjects is a lot higher--including among those who aren't university-aged and those who've gone into a skilled trade or even just been stuck in the service industry--than we think.

I'm also leery of the suggestion that we should be working to shunt "some people" away from universities and into "trades" or non-skilled occupations.


Not everyone wants to go to college, but IMO college should be "for" anyone.

Well said.

[marshwiggle]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to attend a college or university--for one course, for a degree, whatever--should be able to do so, and should be able to do so without taking on crushing levels of debt. Not everyone is going to get an A, but I suspect that interest in university-level subjects is a lot higher--including among those who aren't university-aged and those who've gone into a skilled trade or even just been stuck in the service industry--than we think.

The same argument could be made for second (or third, or more) language lessons, music lessons, art lessons, or literally any type of education.

Not everyone wants to go to college, but IMO college should be "for" anyone.

If education being "for" someone means it should be government-funded, what type of education shouldn't be "for" anyone? Should I be able to get free tutoring in juggling, or solving the Rubik's cube?

[Parasaurolophus]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to attend a college or university--for one course, for a degree, whatever--should be able to do so, and should be able to do so without taking on crushing levels of debt. Not everyone is going to get an A, but I suspect that interest in university-level subjects is a lot higher--including among those who aren't university-aged and those who've gone into a skilled trade or even just been stuck in the service industry--than we think.

The same argument could be made for second (or third, or more) language lessons, music lessons, art lessons, or literally any type of education.

Sure. Is that meant to be a reductio? Our country offers free language-learning at the elementary and secondary levels. Indeed, second-language learning is compulsory.

If education being "for" someone means it should be government-funded, what type of education shouldn't be "for" anyone? Should I be able to get free tutoring in juggling, or solving the Rubik's cube?

Ideally? Sure.

In fact, you can--via YouTube. (Or, again, at the elementary and secondary levels, when people are sometimes brought in to teach children to do these things. That's how I learned to juggle.)

[mahagonny]

The value of inclusion should mean that a college education is for everyone who wants one, so they can become professional educators at the college level, and will henceforth be something added to the main thing (faculty) but not part of it.

[marshwiggle]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to attend a college or university--for one course, for a degree, whatever--should be able to do so, and should be able to do so without taking on crushing levels of debt. Not everyone is going to get an A, but I suspect that interest in university-level subjects is a lot higher--including among those who aren't university-aged and those who've gone into a skilled trade or even just been stuck in the service industry--than we think.

The same argument could be made for second (or third, or more) language lessons, music lessons, art lessons, or literally any type of education.

Sure. Is that meant to be a reductio?

Most definitely. Unless you can give some clear rules for deciding what should not be publicly funded, then it's just an unrealistic fantasy. In principle, if everyone decided to become lifelong full-time students, there'd be no-one to pay taxes and so no funding for education or anything else.

Our country offers free language-learning at the elementary and secondary levels. Indeed, second-language learning is compulsory.

Vraiement.

If education being "for" someone means it should be government-funded, what type of education shouldn't be "for" anyone? Should I be able to get free tutoring in juggling, or solving the Rubik's cube?

Ideally? Sure.

In fact, you can--via YouTube. (Or, again, at the elementary and secondary levels, when people are sometimes brought in to teach children to do these things. That's how I learned to juggle.)
[/quote]

Same goes for basically anything taught at university. You can find lots of good content on all kinds of subjects that's of much higher production value than any university course, and for someone who's not going to get a degree in that topic, that will be a much better general introduction.

[Caracal]

Same goes for basically anything taught at university. You can find lots of good content on all kinds of subjects that's of much higher production value than any university course, and for someone who's not going to get a degree in that topic, that will be a much better general introduction.

They also still use these things called books. They convey information, apparently through symbols or something? Organized education has never had a monopoly on learning. The advantages have always been some combination of systems set up to facilitate learning and the prestige it offers. I think you underestimate the advantages of the systems-just because you can learn things anywhere doesn't mean most people are going to be able to in their spare time, outside of a guided structure.

That said, I agree that the value of a college degree is higher than it ideally would be right now, and that it has the effect of exacerbating inequality. I don't quite understand looking at that situation and thinking that somehow restricting access to college is going to help solve anything or that the problem is that black people think college is important.

[marshwiggle]

That said, I agree that the value of a college degree is higher than it ideally would be right now, and that it has the effect of exacerbating inequality. I don't quite understand looking at that situation and thinking that somehow restricting access to college is going to help solve anything or that the problem is that black people think college is important.

Saying that the government can't provide everything people want for free (or cheap) isn't "restricting" access to anything.

I have yet to see anyone explain how to draw the line between what things the government should pay to have taught to *anyone who wants it, and what they shouldn't.

"College", (or "university", for that matter), isn't some concept handed down from God; institutions add programs in all kinds of things. To argue that basically "if a recognized institution decides to create a program in X, the government should finance any student that desires it to study X" makes for a ridiculously random qualification that is open to all kinds of abuse. Specifically, the more "affordable" the government makes it, the more students will potentially take it regardless of whether society gets any measurable long-term benefit.


*On that note, how much should governments finance independent of students' incoming ability or effort? Is it discriminatory for governments to only finance education for students who have met requirements that suggest they have a reasonable chance for success? Or is "open enrolment" the only way for a government to not be charged with "restricting access" to education?

[Hibush]

I'm also leery of the suggestion that we should be working to shunt "some people" away from universities and into "trades" or non-skilled occupations.

If you are running a for-profit business that provides training for trades and other occupations that don't require college, then it makes lots of sense to shunt as many as possible from college bound into "customer." That perspective is quite valid at the individual business level even if it is at odds with an optimal social policy. Those setting society wise policy need to account for these businesses and their motivations as part of the system. (Policymakers would be university organizations as well as Dept. of Education and Congress.)

[Hibush]

The value of inclusion should mean that a college education is for everyone who wants one, so they can become professional educators at the college level, and will henceforth be something added to the main thing (faculty) but not part of it.

Is the end game then, a system where each student has a professional educator for each subject, tutoring them alone, and doing so without compensation?