HLC is considering degrees with fewer than 120 credits

[marshwiggle]

end point of the shift to three-year bachelor's degree programs in the U.S. will be the elimination of gen ed requirements, which at many institutions only exist to provide job security for faculty members.

And is part of how we (or at least some of us) would describe and "educated" person.

So does that mean people who finished high school but went no farther are  "uneducated"?

Depends on who is speaking, what they are speaking about, and how pedantic and "got'cha" you wish to be, Marshmellow.

Here's an interesting list:
Famous Celebrities without High School Diploma : no education

Some "uneducated" people include Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dickens, and Abraham Lincoln.

Considering there are people who got a degree in Basketweaving and now have careers as baristas at Starbucks, many people with less "formal" education are more "educated" than most of society.
 

[dismalist]

A college student has more maturity and is exposed to much more complex theories and ideas, plus they can build on the basics they learned in high school.

A non-college student in four years is more mature than upon high school graduation -- s/he is four years older!

Wait another five years and anything learned in college and not used on the job is forgotten.

[jimbogumbo]

A college student has more maturity and is exposed to much more complex theories and ideas, plus they can build on the basics they learned in high school.

A non-college student in four years is more mature than upon high school graduation -- s/he is four years older!

Wait another five years and anything learned in college and not used on the job is forgotten.

I'm listening to John McEnroe right now, and to channel him, you can't be serious.

I took a history class focusing on the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazis. Still remember a bunch.


Same on chromium ore and it's importance in then Rhodesia.


That was from 50+ years ago.

[dismalist]

A college student has more maturity and is exposed to much more complex theories and ideas, plus they can build on the basics they learned in high school.

A non-college student in four years is more mature than upon high school graduation -- s/he is four years older!

Wait another five years and anything learned in college and not used on the job is forgotten.

I'm listening to John McEnroe right now, and to channel him, you can't be serious.

I took a history class focusing on the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazis. Still remember a bunch.


Same on chromium ore and it's importance in then Rhodesia.


That was from 50+ years ago.

We can't prevent all good things from happening!

Class is cancelled: Fabulous!

Higher education is the only product where the consumer tries to get as little out of it as possible.

[Hibush]

Higher education is the only product where the consumer tries to get as little out of it as possible.

Which students do the math to realize that each class session costs (list price) as much as a pretty good concert ticket?

[$60,000/(15 credits * 15 weeks/sem *2 sem)= $133]

[ciao_yall]

A college student has more maturity and is exposed to much more complex theories and ideas, plus they can build on the basics they learned in high school.

A non-college student in four years is more mature than upon high school graduation -- s/he is four years older!

Wait another five years and anything learned in college and not used on the job is forgotten.

I'm listening to John McEnroe right now, and to channel him, you can't be serious.

I took a history class focusing on the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazis. Still remember a bunch.


Same on chromium ore and it's importance in then Rhodesia.


That was from 50+ years ago.

The purpose of higher education is not about facts and figures, it's about ways of knowing and understanding that stick with someone long after the details are forgotten.

[dismalist]

Higher education is the only product where the consumer tries to get as little out of it as possible.

Which students do the math to realize that each class session costs (list price) as much as a pretty good concert ticket?

[$60,000/(15 credits * 15 weeks/sem *2 sem)= $133]

The source of the problem is that most of college is signalling, not human capital formation. Students have twigged this. If I get the credential I am better off in the job market, never mind that I haven't learned anything, or that I forgot it upon taking a final exam. Perfectly rational behavior.

You don't prosper on the job market with a list of concert tickets, you enjoy the concerts, or don't pay and don't go.

This is not gonna last.

[jimbogumbo]

A college student has more maturity and is exposed to much more complex theories and ideas, plus they can build on the basics they learned in high school.

A non-college student in four years is more mature than upon high school graduation -- s/he is four years older!

Wait another five years and anything learned in college and not used on the job is forgotten.

I'm listening to John McEnroe right now, and to channel him, you can't be serious.

I took a history class focusing on the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazis. Still remember a bunch.


Same on chromium ore and it's importance in then Rhodesia.


That was from 50+ years ago.

The purpose of higher education is not about facts and figures, it's about ways of knowing and understanding that stick with someone long after the details are forgotten.

That's what I was referring to. I learned economic principles,benefits and costs, effects of sanctions and causative factors for why they occur. I think about those principles when I vote on policy initiatives  and so on.

[Wahoo Redux]

Here's an interesting list:
Famous Celebrities without High School Diploma : no education

Some "uneducated" people include Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dickens, and Abraham Lincoln.

Considering there are people who got a degree in Basketweaving and now have careers as baristas at Starbucks, many people with less "formal" education are more "educated" than most of society.
 

Ah Marshy, as in the old days I find your response, let's say...surprising for an academic professional.  I sometimes wonder, since anyone can pretend to be anyone online, if you are actually an academic professional, but no matter.

I see that I, once again, provided a nonspecific answer which you've misconstrued and strawmanned. Some people cannot handle answers which require them to compose context----I do not know if that is a hallmark of scientific training or not (providing, of course, that you were not lying about being a scientist). I know not all scientists think the way you do----are you really a scientist, Marshman?

So, in order to avoid devolving into a bun fight which seems to trouble the few remaining posters on our moribund little fora, I will just explain once at length and then bow out.

I said absolutely nothing about "success."  Not a word.  You brought in "success" and the myth-of-the-barista, not me. I said nothing about "high school." You.  You said these things. You said very obvious things too, believing, apparently, that you were hitting me with a burn that I had not considered.  That was you.  Very typical.  And "celebrities!?" Really!?

I said "educated."  What, you might ask, do we mean by this?

Well, if someone is educated at "Regina's Beauty College," we figure they are educated to style hair.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  One can be extremely successful in that field.  As far as I can tell, having my hair cut many times in my life, hair stylists seem like a fairly happy lot.  They will always be in demand.  There's not big money in hair styling for the most part, but stylists will always be paid.

If someone is educated with an online SEO or IT certificate, we figure that they can optimize a website or debug a laptop.  Again, one can be very successful here, although these jobs will probably be elimated by A.I. sometime in the near future.

If someone is educated by Moody's Underwriting Certificate, one can write insurance contracts.  This career has both college-educated people and people who never went past h.s.  It's fair money and will always be in demand----until A.I. wipes out their jobs.

If someone is educated in high school, we figure that they have at least basic literacy and basic numerology and a spattering of exposure to other subjects such as history, literature, film, finance, et al.  The degree to which a h.s. grad is successfully "educated" spans illiteracy to genius and everything in between----a lot has to do with socioeconomic context and location.  We all know this.  Some h.s. grads are going to make scads of money, set the world on fire and redefine civilization in some way.  Some h.s. grads will die on the street.  These trajectories are probably affected by h.s., but who can say exactly what or how much?  A h.s. grad should have enough skills to, for instance, take a job, join the military, becoming a police officer, go to college, or start a criminal empire.

Note that, unless you are Dougie Howser, we do not allow people with merely a h.s. degree into medical school, law school, and one cannot become an officer in the military, and it is very unlikely you will be hired as an executive in a major corporation or be elected POTUS.  Unfair?  Maybe, but these are longstanding standards. 

Success?  Do we REALLY need to drum up the data which shows the relative earning power of a college degree?  Or would we rather drum up the exceptions, some of whom come from eras much different from our own?

So as to the question of "success"----Duh, my friend.  Duh, duh, duh.  That was a stupid comment.  We all know that some people will be highly "successful" who never went to college.  I suspect it is your delicate conservative ideology which directs your brain this way.  Try to outgrow that if you can.

As for college education, we figure that graduates have advanced their basic literacy to something beyond what they had when they left high school----and most have.  Numerology, maybe, maybe not, depending on major.  In the 20th century sense of a liberal arts education, we figure that our graduates will have a depth of knowledge about a single subject which will allow them to pursue a career, and that they have a depth of skillsets which will allow them to pursue a career not in their majors, change careers, or continue on to graduate school. We figure, with luck, that when A.I. wipes out their industries, they have the basic tools to switch paths. 

AND, in the liberal arts tradition, we figure that people actually know something about the world outside their majors----so if you say something like "Hamlet" or "Battle of Waterloo" or "Plate Techtonics" or "biosphere" or "Theory of Relativity," just as examples, the college educated person will have run into at least some of these. In other words, we still have a smattering of knowledge but to a deeper degree than they did when they left h.s.

AND, we consider in the liberal arts tradition, that college students were forced to retrain their minds on a series of tasks, not simply work through the bare essentials of jobs training.  If you are going to say something to the effect of "college is not the only way blah blah blah," I will preemptively say, duh; you just said something obvious and stupid.

In any of educational scenarios (beauty styling to the PhD), we figure you will leave the training with more than you had when you started.  And if you learn a bunch in h.s., you will add onto that in college----so college is a good thing to add.  And if you are going to say something stupid about "you can learn just as much blah blah," I will preemptively say, duh, but not very many people do.

These are exactly what are being removed by the low-credit degree.

As for "fogetting" what you learned, I do know know what y'alls education was like, but, yeah, I remember a hell of a lot, even from back in high school.  Maybe you should go back and do it again.

On edit, maybe your response (and the responses you generated) are not so surprising.

[marshwiggle]

As for college education, we figure that graduates have advanced their basic literacy to something beyond what they had when they left high school----and most have.  Numerology, maybe, maybe not, depending on major.  In the 20th century sense of a liberal arts education, we figure that our graduates will have a depth of knowledge about a single subject which will allow them to pursue a career, and that they have a depth of skillsets which will allow them to pursue a career not in their majors, change careers, or continue on to graduate school. We figure, with luck, that when A.I. wipes out their industries, they have the basic tools to switch paths. 

AND, in the liberal arts tradition, we figure that people actually know something about the world outside their majors----so if you say something like "Hamlet" or "Battle of Waterloo" or "Plate Techtonics" or "biosphere" or "Theory of Relativity," just as examples, the college educated person will have run into at least some of these. In other words, we still have a smattering of knowledge but to a deeper degree than they did when they left h.s.

AND, we consider in the liberal arts tradition, that college students were forced to retrain their minds on a series of tasks, not simply work through the bare essentials of jobs training.  If you are going to say something to the effect of "college is not the only way blah blah blah," I will preemptively say, duh; you just said something obvious and stupid.

In any of educational scenarios (beauty styling to the PhD), we figure you will leave the training with more than you had when you started.  And if you learn a bunch in h.s., you will add onto that in college----so college is a good thing to add.  And if you are going to say something stupid about "you can learn just as much blah blah," I will preemptively say, duh, but not very many people do.

These are exactly what are being removed by the low-credit degree.

I guess I struck a nerve...

In ANY class students are FORCED to attend, many get next to nothing out of it. If the course is designed for conscripts, then tt will eventually be dumbed down enough to be next to useless in order to get people through it.

I'm sure everyone in a forum like this could point to a course (or several) that they were forced to take that wound up teaching them something which stuck with them and for which they are thankful. But the people here are academics; ie. the kind of people who geek out on learning for its own sake. Many people in society who are herded into post-secondary education aren't like that.

As for "fogetting" what you learned, I do know know what y'alls education was like, but, yeah, I remember a hell of a lot, even from back in high school.  Maybe you should go back and do it again.

So do I.  That's because I'm the type of person drawn to academia, who enjoys learning for its own sake. But many of my students are not like me. Forcing them to do a lot of courses that they don't see a point to is going to be mostly a waste of time and effort.

Many people who were not able to get a lot of formal education are also people who enjoy learning for its own sake, and so they educated themselves on all kinds of things.

The desire to learn is infinitely more important than compulsory enrolment in courses. Formal education doesn't automatically produce that desire.

[spork]

[..]

ways of knowing

[...]

According to the cognitive psychologists, one of those completely meaningless phrases like "critical thinking."

I recently attended a social gathering, with a college dance professor sitting to my left and a retired K-12 teacher sitting to my right. When they started earnestly discussing learning styles, I had to get up and leave to avoid laughing out loud.

[dismalist]

But many of my students are not like me.

God forbid: Variety in human beings! What next? People might have opinions different from mine. The horror!

[Wahoo Redux]

I guess I struck a nerve...

Only with your failure of comprehension. 

[Hibush]

Higher education is the only product where the consumer tries to get as little out of it as possible.

Which students do the math to realize that each class session costs (list price) as much as a pretty good concert ticket?

[$60,000/(15 credits * 15 weeks/sem *2 sem)= $133]

The source of the problem is that most of college is signalling, not human capital formation. Students have twigged this. If I get the credential I am better off in the job market, never mind that I haven't learned anything, or that I forgot it upon taking a final exam. Perfectly rational behavior.

You don't prosper on the job market with a list of concert tickets, you enjoy the concerts, or don't pay and don't go.

This is not gonna last.

Yes, for the credentialists the coursework is an additional cost rather than the product they paid for.

Happily my program rejects those applicants, so the environment is rather different.

[dismalist]

Higher education is the only product where the consumer tries to get as little out of it as possible.

Which students do the math to realize that each class session costs (list price) as much as a pretty good concert ticket?

[$60,000/(15 credits * 15 weeks/sem *2 sem)= $133]

The source of the problem is that most of college is signalling, not human capital formation. Students have twigged this. If I get the credential I am better off in the job market, never mind that I haven't learned anything, or that I forgot it upon taking a final exam. Perfectly rational behavior.

You don't prosper on the job market with a list of concert tickets, you enjoy the concerts, or don't pay and don't go.

This is not gonna last.

Yes, for the credentialists the coursework is an additional cost rather than the product they paid for.

Happily my program rejects those applicants, so the environment is rather different.

I'm genuinely glad that you can do that. But, how can you tell the difference, as credentialists will disguise themselves as education lovers?

ETA: Upon reflection, I've done the same: Require calculus to apply and more calculus once accepted.