NBC: Why Americans are increasingly dubious about going to college

[Stockmann]

Interesting debate about money vs. how it's allocated. i know it's a very crude measure, but some years ago the THE had some numbers on number of highly ranked universities per billion dollars spent on HE. Of the countries even in the running, the UK and Switzerland had the best numbers, Spain had the worst, France was low, and the US was very middle of the pack. I wasn't at all surprised - Spain and France aren't famous for their efficiency, and the UK, etc aren't big on climbing walls, lazy rivers, pool tables, etc. A lot of US colleges are basically entertainment centers with some teaching and credentialing on the side. That costs money, and creates a vicious circle - why would anyone want to subsidize other people's kids partying? And, since education is a fairly minor concern for a significant number of students, they demand and expect a deluxe entertainment experience if it costs an arm and a leg.
In both per student terms or as a percentage of the economy, US HE isn't underfunded by global standards. If adjunct wages are low, that has little to do with how much money HE is allocated and a lot more to do with how that money is spent. That in turn is shaped by people's wants and expectations - politicians, students, senior tenured faculty, etc.
Interestingly, in K12 it is even clearer that money is far from being the decisive factor in getting a successful system. Looking at PISA test results, for example, it's blindingly obvious culture matters more than anything else. The Confucianist countries are in a league of their own, esp. in math. Finland and Estonia, with related cultures, lead the rest of the world. The English and German speaking worlds come next. Then assorted developed countries such as France, even though France leads the pack when it comes to teacher's pay, and the more functional non-Confucianist middle income countries like Chile.
It's also interesting to me the very American assumption that more public funds for HE necessarily involve more students in college - this is only true if you assume the money is just lent to students in bigger numbers. An obvious alternative is that you could have dirt cheap or even free, but highly selective, public colleges - there would be a limited number of places, allocated competitively. This is pretty what happens in much of central and northern Europe, it's not a pipe dream. It's also a far more meritocratic system, as affordability is much less of an issue. It's not just climbing walls where costs are cut - there's probably a lot less spending on remedial education, too. Also, no generalist education.

[Wahoo Redux]

An obvious alternative is that you could have dirt cheap or even free, but highly selective, public colleges - there would be a limited number of places, allocated competitively.

From a teacher's perspective, this sounds really, really sweet.

But how would tax payers respond if they are forced to pay for a college education that their children could not attend? 

[dismalist]

An obvious alternative is that you could have dirt cheap or even free, but highly selective, public colleges - there would be a limited number of places, allocated competitively.

From a teacher's perspective, this sounds really, really sweet.

But how would tax payers respond if they are forced to pay for a college education that their children could not attend?

Everything Stockmann is says is good, great, really, totally on point, except promoting free college to the select. His post, two above, should be savored in entirety.

The select must pay, borrow to pay, if need be, otherwise one is subsidizing those who will become high income earners, very high. Government gifts to the rich are not my cup of tea, nor much of the electorate's, as tomorrow's debt forgiveness will show.

[Wahoo Redux]

Is there any reason we can't have "no frills" college?

• Minimal admin---only the necessary executives
• Minimal staff----only the necessary functionaries; not even academic advisors, to get a college degree you have to be smart enough to read the criteria and negotiate the schedule
• Only the classes you need for your major with a few gen eds that cover the basic skillsets
• No gyms, dorms, parking, shuttle busses, sports, memorial union buildings unless they are rental spaces for food franchises

I've just always wondered that no one discusses this.

[Hegemony]

[quote author=dismalist link=topic=3061.msg111669#msg111669 date=1661291824

But how would tax payers respond if they are forced to pay for a college education that their children could not attend?

Everything Stockmann is says is good, great, really, totally on point, except promoting free college to the select. His post, two above, should be savored in entirety.

The select must pay, borrow to pay, if need be, otherwise one is subsidizing those who will become high income earners, very high. Government gifts to the rich are not my cup of tea, nor much of the electorate's, as tomorrow's debt forgiveness will show.
[/quote]

Of course this is the system in place in many countries: Germany, Belgium, Scotland, Denmark, and Finland, to name a few. The income of the higher earners is not stratospherically higher than the average, unlike the U.S., so that may account for some of the widespread support for the scheme. My experience is that they also believe that it's good for the country to have a proportion of people with advanced training, and worth supporting. Of course the American way is to only support initiatives from which one might benefit personally, otherwise it's "other people looting my pockets out of greed."

[dismalist]

[quote author=dismalist link=topic=3061.msg111669#msg111669 date=1661291824

But how would tax payers respond if they are forced to pay for a college education that their children could not attend?

Everything Stockmann is says is good, great, really, totally on point, except promoting free college to the select. His post, two above, should be savored in entirety.

The select must pay, borrow to pay, if need be, otherwise one is subsidizing those who will become high income earners, very high. Government gifts to the rich are not my cup of tea, nor much of the electorate's, as tomorrow's debt forgiveness will show.

Of course this is the system in place in many countries: Germany, Belgium, Scotland, Denmark, and Finland, to name a few. The income of the higher earners is not stratospherically higher than the average, unlike the U.S., so that may account for some of the widespread support for the scheme. My experience is that they also believe that it's good for the country to have a proportion of people with advanced training, and worth supporting. Of course the American way is to only support initiatives from which one might benefit personally, otherwise it's "other people looting my pockets out of greed."

[/quote]

So, a little bit of subsidizing the only a little bit rich is OK? In other words, regressive taxes are OK?

These are values, not scientific results. I don't like giving taxpayers' money to the rich and vote accordingly.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm impressed with some of what Stockmann has said, but not all of it.

Interesting debate about money vs. how it's allocated. i know it's a very crude measure, but some years ago the THE had some numbers on number of highly ranked universities per billion dollars spent on HE.

In both per student terms or as a percentage of the economy, US HE isn't underfunded by global standards.

So what?

I'll say this again: just take a look at the state of our campuses, the armies or poorly paid adjuncts necessary to fulfill our colleges' primary purpose, and the cost of tuition which is turning us into the bad guys.  We get blamed because college is a lifelong debt for many people.

Who cares what other countries are doing!?

For whatever reasons, our situation is what it is.

[Anon1787]

Who cares what other countries are doing!?

For whatever reasons, our situation is what it is.

American exceptionalism!

[marshwiggle]

Is there any reason we can't have "no frills" college?

• Minimal admin---only the necessary executives
• Minimal staff----only the necessary functionaries; not even academic advisors, to get a college degree you have to be smart enough to read the criteria and negotiate the schedule
• Only the classes you need for your major with a few gen eds that cover the basic skillsets
• No gyms, dorms, parking, shuttle busses, sports, memorial union buildings unless they are rental spaces for food franchises

I've just always wondered that no one discusses this.

That is why no-one discusses this; because the entrance requirements would make it glaringly obvious how far short most high school "graduates" fall.

[marshwiggle]

Sorry for the double post, but this needed a comment.

Of course this is the system in place in many countries: Germany, Belgium, Scotland, Denmark, and Finland, to name a few. The income of the higher earners is not stratospherically higher than the average, unlike the U.S., so that may account for some of the widespread support for the scheme. My experience is that they also believe that it's good for the country to have a proportion of people with advanced training, and worth supporting. Of course the American way is to only support initiatives from which one might benefit personally, otherwise it's "other people looting my pockets out of greed."

The right and the left both contribute to this problem. The right, as noted above, by not wanting to pay for something with no personal benefit, ensure a high cost for education of those who want it. However, the left exacerbate the problem by refusing to help students make realistic choices about education, but rather feed the fantasy that anyone can be anything they want, and any education will lead to employment.

• A person who is 5 feet tall will never have a career playing in the NBA.
• A person who weighs 300 pounds, no matter how fit, will never have a career as a jockey.

Except for the tiny fraction of rich people, most people will need to be employed for most of their adult lives. This means students should consider two possibilities.

Possibility 1
Find something that

• you really like to do
• you are at least moderately good at
• someone will pay you for

Possibility 2
Find something that

• you don't mind doing
• you are really good at
• someone will pay you for

Anything else is not realistic as a career plan. Education that is based on an unrealistic career plan is an expensive luxury.
(If someone's career plan doesn't depend on their education, and they know that, then they can go ahead and study whatever they want.)

[Hibush]

Possibility 1
Find something that

• you really like to do
• you are at least moderately good at
• someone will pay you for

Possibility 2
Find something that

• you don't mind doing
• you are really good at
• someone will pay you for

But there are only two jobs in the economy, barista and ivory-tower professor. What about people who are not good at being a barista? What are they to do????

[Wahoo Redux]

Possibility 1
Find something that

• you really like to do
• you are at least moderately good at
• someone will pay you for

Possibility 2
Find something that

• you don't mind doing
• you are really good at
• someone will pay you for

But there are only two jobs in the economy, barista and ivory-tower professor. What about people who are not good at being a barista? What are they to do????

They are going to be hip hop stars.

I'm going to be a rock star.

[Stockmann]

Who cares what other countries are doing!?

For whatever reasons, our situation is what it is.

Yes, obviously, the most expensive (to students, by far) HE system in the world obviously has nothing to learn from the rest of the world about keeping things affordable or cutting costs, and not looking at the reasons for a problem is a good way to reach enduring solutions.

[Wahoo Redux]

Who cares what other countries are doing!?

For whatever reasons, our situation is what it is.

Yes, obviously, the most expensive (to students, by far) HE system in the world obviously has nothing to learn from the rest of the world about keeping things affordable or cutting costs, and not looking at the reasons for a problem is a good way to reach enduring solutions.

Fair enough.

How do we fix ourselves?

Should we ignore the differences between societies?  It's the same problem with gun culture.  Sure, we shoot the hell out of each other.  But do you think the same thing that works in Brittan and Japan, where gun violence is at a minimum, will work in the real world we now inhabit?  You think gun owners are going to hand over their weapons?  You think the NRA is going to back down?

Can everyplace learn to deal with gun violence like Japan?  Can Somalia (reductio ad absurdum, obviously, but still...)

Polly used to use the term "magical thinking" which enraged a lot of people because it is so obnoxious.  Polly pointed her sarcasm at people who she felt were not dealing with the realities of the demographic cliff and public attitudes.  A lot of us had ideas and differences in opinions, but if these did not match up with the real world, we got the "magical thinking" alarm.

I am 100% for whatever truly, honestly, absolutely will work.  I'm just wondering about overhauling our relatively new and controversial system and model it on a culture which has developed its educational system over hundreds of years and with a much different history and attitude than our former slave-owning, formally frontier, and post G.I. Bill society.  Is it magical thinking to think we can hit the brakes now and completely retool our ed system in a way that will not infuriate and disadvantage a lot of people.

For instance:

Specifically, how should we administer your meritocracy? 

Should all Americans pay into this system? 

We know that suburban kids with tutors and college educated parents are going to academically outperform most kids from more difficult backgrounds?  What do we do with the poor kid from the inner city who works really hard but, because of inequities in secondary education, cannot compete with the suburbanites?  Guess we will have to make accommodations as we do now and allot an admission for kids whose playing field was not level.  It may not be legal by the letter of the law, and it may not be fair to the suburbanite who did nothing wrong...but we are only going to pay for so many slots and we don't just want suburbanites in college.  So, that's that.

So now the suburbanite kid is out a free state education.  I suppose suburbanite kid could take out loans and go to Stanford----if our suburbanite can get in; Stanford is now super-hot property for rich and smart people.  I suppose these exclusive public universities will be good news to the SLACs now teetering on the edge of insolvency...but we still have the same problem as Stanford (now populated by very rich people) and most of these SLACs will be gone by the time we manage to retool our entire system.  And it will be a mark of mediocrity to attend a SLAC ("Not smart'nuff for a free college, huh?")   I suppose we could reestablish SLACs----but boy, that is a lot of time and money.

Our students can start heading overseas, which is one of the things I suspect is going to start happening at some point in the future.  Maybe they will benefit from the European system which works so much better than ours (anybody talked to anybody who has gone to one of these universities?  They may not work as well as you seem to think they do).

We are now channeling bright young people into certificate programs and apprenticeships----but these will have bubbles too.  At some point we will have more electricians than we need and we will have photon computers or some such and the people trained as IT repair people will need to learn a new skillset or, I dunno, work for Walmart or apply for a free state education which they will probably not get.

I am not dismissive of your knowledge, Stockmann, since I think you know more than I do.  But you, as most people, are giving us a facile response to a complicated real-world problem.

But I am willing to learn.  Specially, what are we supposed to do from this point onward in our real-world?

[dismalist]

Now we have $10K debt forgiveness.

The Babylon Bee of course exaggerates when it claims tuition will rise by an extra $10, 000.

https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-to-forgive-10k-in-student-loans-in-unrelated-news-nations-colleges-raise-tuition-by-10k

It will rise by the expected frequency of debt forgiveness times the expected amount of debt, that product divided by the number of years between forgivings.

Never mind the number. Increase demand without touching supply and price rises.

The winners are those that have incurred debt in the past, not those that will incur debt in the future.

And I'm willing to bet that this has a non-measurable effect on adjuncts' wages.

This is what can happen when the "I want more" urge is satisfied.

[As an aside, I don't think this is a wise move politically. All those without debt will feel cheated and vote with the working stiffs.]