NBC: Why Americans are increasingly dubious about going to college

[Wahoo Redux]

The reason that we must have an "opinion" about the public good is because we do not have a control to tell us what our society would be like if, for instance, government did not subsize state institutions.

Of course, we can, again, look at societies which do not have widespread education, or look at the state of America or England before mandatory education or widespread college education, but the temptation is always to play the "causation with correlation" card to explain these circumstances away.

[dismalist]

The reason that we must have an "opinion" about the public good is because we do not have a control to tell us what our society would be like if, for instance, government did not subsize state institutions.

Of course, we can, again, look at societies which do not have widespread education, or look at the state of America or England before mandatory education or widespread college education, but the temptation is always to play the "causation with correlation" card to explain these circumstances away.

Of course you must have an opinion, not what a public good is, but how much of what you want. If it's pure public, you are well off getting it through the voting booth. Just be aware that not everyone wants the same quantity of the public good that you want. Opinions about how much differ, and so will votes.

On this thread I merely object to the claim that something is a public good when it is clearly not, and that that attribution is used to justify "I want more." 'Twont do.

Buona Notte.

[Wahoo Redux]

I think Big-D just stated the obvious and attributed a strawmen.

That said, I freely admit that the American ed system is not working the way it is supposed to on several fronts----standard quality and cost among them----and our answer seems to be to want to tear it all down. 

And maybe we should?

I've wondered without any sort of insight or data, admittedly, if we can rebuild our education and make it better.

But I suspect we are simply going to let it founder, and maybe y'all's grandkids (my wife and I have no and want no children) will be looking at schools in places like, I dunno, Norway or China to get a real education when Harvard and Columbia (among the last American holdouts) turn them down.

[kaysixteen]

I am remembering a guy I went to grad school with, maybe a year younger than I but with a head start on his PhD program-- we overlapped for two years.   He finished his classics PhD and took a two year VAP.   He was also a family man with a couple of young kids.  Apparently the school he vap-ed at wanted to hire him onto the tt (?), but he elected to leave academia and attend law school there-- southern CA.   On graduation, he began to practice law there, which he still does over 20 years later.  In grad school, he was a stereotypical campus Marxist, rather annoying (esp to me, given what I was then myself, of course), but a sharp enough guy.  We lost touch over the next 20 years or so but within the last two years became FB friends through a mutual old grad school buddy.   I began quite quickly to notice that, ahem, well let's just say that he seems to have exchanged the Gospel according to Marx for the Gospel according to Ayn Rand.   I asked him half-seriously 'what happened to the old lovable Marxist __________ we all knew back in the day?', and he responded, 'I got a job!'.   I successfully resisted telling him that this particular job has offered him the chance to make big dollars, *through the possession of a state licensed professional monopoly.  Ah well.   I am no Marxist, of course, but I will take ol' Karl any day, and twice on Sunday, over the infamous Ayn,whose very name makes me want to lose my lunch, as a Christian, and whose hideous philosophy has contributed mightily to that end of public good seeking we have seen in this country.

[marshwiggle]

I asked him half-seriously 'what happened to the old lovable Marxist __________ we all knew back in the day?', and he responded, 'I got a job!'.   

Al illustration of the principle:

A man who has not been a socialist before 25 has no heart. If he remains one after 25 he has no head.—King Oscar II of Sweden

[kaysixteen]

I have seen this attributed to Churchill.  Men of a different time, different economic realities.  And who had never heard of Ayn Rand.   Churchillian noblesse oblige wasn't her thing.

[dismalist]

I have seen this attributed to Churchill.  Men of a different time, different economic realities.  ...

In the Churchill version I know, at least one had until 40 to overcome one's youthful errors. :-)

[Parasaurolophus]

Since we're on the topic, and quoting:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[dismalist]

Since we're on the topic, and quoting:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

I think Ayn Rand is worthless, except for entertainment perhaps. I enjoyed The Fountainhead when I was a kid, shrugged at Atlas Shrugged when I was still a kid, and then wisely stopped when I was still a kid.

Ayn Rand has zero depth.

Strawmanlady.

[marshwiggle]

I have seen this attributed to Churchill.  Men of a different time, different economic realities. 

Variations of this have been attributed to all kinds of people, back to (at least) the French Revolution. There's a basic truth behind it.
In youth, unless one is raised in a neglectful or abusive home, one experiences "authority" as benevolent and even altruistic. Children are a high priority for parents, to the point where parents sacrifice their own good for the children. Thus young people are inclined to trust authority to act in their best interest.
Once one becomes an adult, then "authority" (represented by government, bosses, etc.) has very different priorities, and they are only interested in the well-being of the individual to the extent that it aligns with their own best interests.  Thus people will tend to become more "conservative" (or perhaps libertarian) to the extent that they want to limit the powers of authority so that they may pursue their own interests.


This isn't tied to any specific culture or time period. (For instance, at the time of the French Revolution, "Republican" meant non-Royalist, so young people were "Republican", meaning collectivist. )

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: Higher Ed Must Change or Die

I wasn't sure what to make of this one.

Much of this is the same'ol (demographic, employers not happy)

And it is full of the same vague rhetoric about what we "must do":

Finally, and arguably most importantly, we need to address affordability. Not politicians, but us—leaders at institutions of higher education. Rutgers University's Scarlet Guarantee program, which offers free in-state tuition for families that make less than $65,000, is a step in the right direction. But keep in mind that just 23 percent of four-year public colleges are affordable for a student with an average-sized Pell Grant, according to the National College Attainment Network's analysis; do you think that number will go up or down in the years to come?

Yes, President Wingard, we know.  But how?

[dismalist]

IHE: Higher Ed Must Change or Die

I wasn't sure what to make of this one.

Much of this is the same'ol (demographic, employers not happy)

And it is full of the same vague rhetoric about what we "must do":

Finally, and arguably most importantly, we need to address affordability. Not politicians, but us—leaders at institutions of higher education. Rutgers University's Scarlet Guarantee program, which offers free in-state tuition for families that make less than $65,000, is a step in the right direction. But keep in mind that just 23 percent of four-year public colleges are affordable for a student with an average-sized Pell Grant, according to the National College Attainment Network's analysis; do you think that number will go up or down in the years to come?

Yes, President Wingard, we know.  But how?

There  is one piece of good news in the article:

When I probed them as to why they were hiring students straight from high school, I was told that "the college degree had ceased to be a guarantee that employers were going to get what they wanted." So instead, why not go younger? Why not hire cheaper?

This means that the college signal is declining in value, at least to some employers. Then, fewer need to go to college, a societal savings.

In contrast,

Rutgers University's Scarlet Guarantee program, which offers free in-state tuition for families that make less than $65,000, is a step in the right direction.

is not a step in the right direction, it's same old, same old price discrimination, which is practiced by all colleges already.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'd like to see factual confirmation of Wingard's employment claims, personally.

[marshwiggle]

I'd like to see factual confirmation of Wingard's employment claims, personally.

He almost gets it:

Who needs a four-year marketing degree graduate to run social media when you can instead hire someone fresh out of high school and sign them up for HootSuite's Academy's social media certification course? Why pay for a six-figure education when HootSuite can get you some of the same skills in just six hours and for less than $200?

But then he misses the point:

We all know that a $200 certificate program does not remotely equate to a four-year education from a best-in-class institution like Temple University, but perception is everything.

Um, no. Time will tell if the high school graduates being hired work out well in the long term, as the employers are assuming will happen. If they don't, then that will suggest the lack of higher education is a problem. However, if they do work out, then that will show that for certain employment options, higher education is a waste of time and money.


(Anyone know anything about Columbia University's high school program? I'm guessing it's not your normal run-of-the-mill high school experience, so the graduates are good high school graduates. I'd put top high school graduates against mediocre university graduates any day for many things, since the difference will be much more about motivation than formal education.)

[ciao_yall]

I'd like to see factual confirmation of Wingard's employment claims, personally.

He almost gets it:

Who needs a four-year marketing degree graduate to run social media when you can instead hire someone fresh out of high school and sign them up for HootSuite's Academy's social media certification course? Why pay for a six-figure education when HootSuite can get you some of the same skills in just six hours and for less than $200?

Handy point. Except... the vast majority of people who successfully complete these bootcamp programs already have a Bachelor's degree. They have the literacy, numeracy, lab and other skills needed to get through them.

Then, once the person starts the job, can they do it well? Maybe, still, where will someone be after 3 years? 5 years? Companies want to hire people with upward mobility who can handle additional tasks. A high school grad who squeaked through a bootcamp may do okay as a social media manager, still, a college graduate with broader educational and cultural experience will be far more likely to get promoted, move up, and as a result, stick with the company in the longer term.