"It's time to prioritize what students want and need over what we want to teach"

[Hibush]

The point of research is for faculty to have jobs doing research.  Even then, the question remains regarding how many individuals we can support in each area and why one specific individual should be supported over any other specific individual in the pool.  Society has plenty of needs beyond research for the sake of research and resources are limited.

In my state, at the public universities, the point of research is to support economic development. Bringing in research funds is economic activity in itself, but the bigger impact is to keep the industries of the state competitive. The legislators are not subtle about their intent. 

As an applied scientist, I don't have a problem making a deal that works for everybody. But those doing what we call "curiosity based" research need partners.

Sorry for the OT post. Alt hed: "It's time to prioritize what legislators want and need over what we want to study."

[kaysixteen]

Ok, but how old is she?  Let her fold jeans for a few years and she'll either seek a mgmt promotion or move on,  she probably will have figured out by then that her humanities BA, like it or not, just won't buy the same sort of career her parents, and certainly her grandparents, could easily have gotten with one.

[Hibush]

Ok, but how old is she?  Let her fold jeans for a few years and she'll either seek a mgmt promotion or move on,  she probably will have figured out by then that her humanities BA, like it or not, just won't buy the same sort of career her parents, and certainly her grandparents, could easily have gotten with one.

If you look at actual salaries, humanities groups right in the middle. History (even Art History), English and Philosophy are in the same pack as some noted for a strong demand like Nursing, Accounting, Construction, Information Technology.  The mean for al lSTEM vs all Humanities is difference, but a low salary is not fate but feflects the low end of the people choosing the major. That is, those who end up finding too much satisfaction in the jeans-folding industry choose STEM or finance/business majors less often than they choose humanities majors. 

[polly_mer]

I will disagree about gen eds, admitting as I go that I automatically value the broader educational / liberal arts and always have (even as a not-so-brainy undergrad), and that I have a stake in the game. 

The question still remains: how much true liberal-arts education do people really get out of being marched through a box-checking process at the college level when those people aren't actually college ready and have hordes of faculty doing the minimum to keep their crummy academic jobs without the support the faculty need to give those struggling students the necessary support to succeed as students?

Like Spork, I want the resources put into K-12 to have everyone possible college ready who can then choose what they want to do.

I will also mention the trends are to "get gen ed requirements out of the way" prior to entering college for the good students.  The rise in dual enrollment, dual credit, and AP/IB programs means fewer students arrive at college needing the gen eds.  Add in the push in some quarters for starting at community college where the gen eds are cheaper and then transferring to the big state school and those faculty jobs teaching gen eds continue to be pushed down to the poorest paying, least-stable community colleges.

You know that there are plenty of employment-centric schools which focus on the perception that they define "what students want and need."

Why is the choice always

(a) pitiful shadows of a liberal arts education through checkbox general education at a resource-strapped regional comprehensive

or

(b) flat out garbage from a for-profit?

A decent engineering education acquired by people who are college ready and learn all the background information is a pretty good education that generally results in people who can do many things that society needs and have a pretty good personal life.  These are generally people who could have decided to go a liberal arts route and decided to do something else.  A small portion are people who cannot love the liberal arts because they love tinkering and exploring science so much more.  As a society, we cannot afford to continue to lose the tinkerers because of irrelevant general education requirements that should have been completed in K-12.

Likewise, someone who really buys into teaching and education as a professional skill set, not just liking kids and looking for a job for a few years until one's family is ready, tends to get a pretty good education that allows them to do many wonderful things through their lives.  Again, putting irrelevant hoops in place instead of nurturing the guided experience of being in the classroom as the instructor is a way to continue to be short on the good teachers.  People who have a solid K-12 education need the teaching skills and the sociology of human thought, not more content for content's sake.

One can indeed spent about a year acquiring certificates for many jobs.  Again, the days when someone with a strong back and a weak mind could do those jobs is basically over.  Instead, one needs to be literate, numerate through algebra, and able to learn how to deal with the computer that will be doing much of the work or how to deal with the changing legal requirements for contracting.  These are not jobs for dummies; the ones that pay pretty well are jobs for people who have a good mind, but aren't bookish people. 

However, no one can do any of the good professional programs, a true liberal arts education, or a lucrative certificate program without a solid K-12 education.  Remediating at the college level is too little too late for most people who could have risen to the occasion.  The rare exception is the person who blew their crummy K-12 school out of the water and needs a little support to come up to speed since they only have a middle-school education, but are eager to do more.

[ciao_yall]

Ok, but how old is she?  Let her fold jeans for a few years and she'll either seek a mgmt promotion or move on,  she probably will have figured out by then that her humanities BA, like it or not, just won't buy the same sort of career her parents, and certainly her grandparents, could easily have gotten with one.

If you look at actual salaries, humanities groups right in the middle. History (even Art History), English and Philosophy are in the same pack as some noted for a strong demand like Nursing, Accounting, Construction, Information Technology.  The mean for al lSTEM vs all Humanities is difference, but a low salary is not fate but feflects the low end of the people choosing the major. That is, those who end up finding too much satisfaction in the jeans-folding industry choose STEM or finance/business majors less often than they choose humanities majors.

That is because 99% of those who major in History, Art History, English, and Philosophy don't end up working in museums, as writers or philosophers. They use their visual and communications skills to become managers in the jeans-folding industry.

[polly_mer]

Ok, but how old is she?  Let her fold jeans for a few years and she'll either seek a mgmt promotion or move on,  she probably will have figured out by then that her humanities BA, like it or not, just won't buy the same sort of career her parents, and certainly her grandparents, could easily have gotten with one.

If you look at actual salaries, humanities groups right in the middle. History (even Art History), English and Philosophy are in the same pack as some noted for a strong demand like Nursing, Accounting, Construction, Information Technology.  The mean for al lSTEM vs all Humanities is difference, but a low salary is not fate but feflects the low end of the people choosing the major. That is, those who end up finding too much satisfaction in the jeans-folding industry choose STEM or finance/business majors less often than they choose humanities majors.

That is because 99% of those who major in History, Art History, English, and Philosophy don't end up working in museums, as writers or philosophers. They use their visual and communications skills to become managers in the jeans-folding industry.

Many of these studies also lump together everyone who earned a specific degree so that the benefits at mid-career tend to also include that MPA, MBA, or law degree earned by the BA holder who decided that jean-folding was only fun for a year or two. 

The people who go to elite colleges tend to do well because they don't spend too many years folding jeans and instead start climbing some career ladder with a middle-class-or-higher income.

I fully expect that some of the results for humanities BA holders is more the result of who gets those degrees (generally people with something on the ball who had enough stability to not drop out) and less the value of the degree itself.  The Grinnell graduate who did good networking and is willing to move to any of the metropolitan areas in the US is far better off in terms of a high-paying job than the Compass Point State graduate in history who wants to go back home to the town of 2500 people and have a bill-paying job.

[ciao_yall]

Ok, but how old is she?  Let her fold jeans for a few years and she'll either seek a mgmt promotion or move on,  she probably will have figured out by then that her humanities BA, like it or not, just won't buy the same sort of career her parents, and certainly her grandparents, could easily have gotten with one.

If you look at actual salaries, humanities groups right in the middle. History (even Art History), English and Philosophy are in the same pack as some noted for a strong demand like Nursing, Accounting, Construction, Information Technology.  The mean for al lSTEM vs all Humanities is difference, but a low salary is not fate but feflects the low end of the people choosing the major. That is, those who end up finding too much satisfaction in the jeans-folding industry choose STEM or finance/business majors less often than they choose humanities majors.

That is because 99% of those who major in History, Art History, English, and Philosophy don't end up working in museums, as writers or philosophers. They use their visual and communications skills to become managers in the jeans-folding industry.

Many of these studies also lump together everyone who earned a specific degree so that the benefits at mid-career tend to also include that MPA, MBA, or law degree earned by the BA holder who decided that jean-folding was only fun for a year or two. 

The people who go to elite colleges tend to do well because they don't spend too many years folding jeans and instead start climbing some career ladder with a middle-class-or-higher income.

I fully expect that some of the results for humanities BA holders is more the result of who gets those degrees (generally people with something on the ball who had enough stability to not drop out) and less the value of the degree itself. The Grinnell graduate who did good networking and is willing to move to any of the metropolitan areas in the US is far better off in terms of a high-paying job than the Compass Point State graduate in history who wants to go back home to the town of 2500 people and have a bill-paying job.

Exactly. That is why the BA/BS is a social/cultural marker and not an educational marker. That is why so many jobs want someone with the BA/BS even though the "skills" technically don't require one.

[Caracal]

Ok, but how old is she?  Let her fold jeans for a few years and she'll either seek a mgmt promotion or move on,  she probably will have figured out by then that her humanities BA, like it or not, just won't buy the same sort of career her parents, and certainly her grandparents, could easily have gotten with one.

Working retail does get old, but it can be pretty great if you're in your early 20s. Older people tend to forget that by the end of college, graduates have spent most of their lives on an academic schedule. It can feel pretty great after that to spend a few years at a job that you completely walk away from at the end of the day.

[Caracal]

Many of these studies also lump together everyone who earned a specific degree so that the benefits at mid-career tend to also include that MPA, MBA, or law degree earned by the BA holder who decided that jean-folding was only fun for a year or two. 

The people who go to elite colleges tend to do well because they don't spend too many years folding jeans and instead start climbing some career ladder with a middle-class-or-higher income.

I fully expect that some of the results for humanities BA holders is more the result of who gets those degrees (generally people with something on the ball who had enough stability to not drop out) and less the value of the degree itself.  The Grinnell graduate who did good networking and is willing to move to any of the metropolitan areas in the US is far better off in terms of a high-paying job than the Compass Point State graduate in history who wants to go back home to the town of 2500 people and have a bill-paying job.

Well, sure but the studies also include all the people who got a BS and then went to Med School, Nursing, School or got a masters or a PHD. I also can't imagine enough students are getting degrees at elite schools to skew the numbers that much.

[Hibush]

Ok, but how old is she?  Let her fold jeans for a few years and she'll either seek a mgmt promotion or move on,  she probably will have figured out by then that her humanities BA, like it or not, just won't buy the same sort of career her parents, and certainly her grandparents, could easily have gotten with one.

If you look at actual salaries, humanities groups right in the middle. History (even Art History), English and Philosophy are in the same pack as some noted for a strong demand like Nursing, Accounting, Construction, Information Technology.  The mean for al lSTEM vs all Humanities is difference, but a low salary is not fate but feflects the low end of the people choosing the major. That is, those who end up finding too much satisfaction in the jeans-folding industry choose STEM or finance/business majors less often than they choose humanities majors.

That is because 99% of those who major in History, Art History, English, and Philosophy don't end up working in museums, as writers or philosophers. They use their visual and communications skills to become managers in the jeans-folding industry.

Yes, exactly. There are plenty of management jobs that can use a reasonably smart, motivated person with a good education.

[Wahoo Redux]

The question still remains: how much true liberal-arts education do people really get out of being marched through a box-checking process at the college level when those people aren't actually college ready and have hordes of faculty doing the minimum to keep their crummy academic jobs without the support the faculty need to give those struggling students the necessary support to succeed as students?

I was marched through a "box checking process" in basic science for my humanities degree.  I didn't want to take geology 101, but it was the only thing available. 

Did it change my life?  Yes.  It is a small change overall, but it was also profound for my understanding of the world and my appreciation for science.

Would I have been an unsuccessful lump of a human being had not taken geology 101?  No.  But it certainly helped my brain.  And it certainly helped my understanding of the scientific process----so when my consciousness is approached by some scientific controversy, like global warming, how and what I think has definitely been altered for the better.

This cookie cutter / bow-checking business is far from perfect, but it works. 

And "crummy academic jobs"?  My God but you are arrogant.  I'd love to see your old teaching evals, my dear, and I am tempted to use a phrase best left to teenagers who drive idiotically----but I won't.  Most academics I know work very hard at their classes, certainty not all, but most I have known do.  Perhaps you just taught at a really crummy school and that has warped your perceptions (which makes me think again I should put you on my ignore list...).

Like Spork, I want the resources put into K-12 to have everyone possible college ready who can then choose what they want to do.

Suuuuuuure.  You and Spork can figure out how to pay for that for the 26K+ secondary schools with 13M+ students in the U.S. 

And the point of college is that students "choose what they want to do."  Or didn't you know that?

Personally I'd like to see all levels of education receive better funding; people like you and Spork do not help.

I will also mention the trends are to "get gen ed requirements out of the way" prior to entering college for the good students.  The rise in dual enrollment, dual credit, and AP/IB programs means fewer students arrive at college needing the gen eds.  Add in the push in some quarters for starting at community college where the gen eds are cheaper and then transferring to the big state school and those faculty jobs teaching gen eds continue to be pushed down to the poorest paying, least-stable community colleges.

Great.  And I applaud this push.  Let's bring the brightest high school students to the college campuses----chronological age is not always the best way to designate level of study, and I have had some really excellent secondary students in my lower and upper division classes. 

Let's bolster and stabilize those CC jobs. 

Why is the choice always

(a) pitiful shadows of a liberal arts education through checkbox general education at a resource-strapped regional comprehensive

or

(b) flat out garbage from a for-profit?

Because that IS the choice, Polly.  Emphatically, that is the choice.  MIT----the premier technical school in the world---- has bachelors in both Literature and Philosophy, and it has a humanities, art, and social sciences requirement.

They all do.

Find me a single legitimate college or university that does not have a "pitiful shadows of a liberal arts education" (arrogant much?) built into its curriculum.  Go ahead.  I dare you.

You know which "universities" don't?  U of Phoenix.  Capella University.  Pig Knuckle Business College.  (And even these make a show of teaching the classes in question.)

Students don't always know what they "want" and they seldom know what they "need," at least in the practical sense.

You and Spork are greatly outnumbered.

As a society, we cannot afford to continue to lose the tinkerers because of irrelevant general education requirements that should have been completed in K-12.

What are you even talking about? 

If they ain't smart or driven or dedicated enough to fulfill a lower-div gen ed degree then we have lost nothing.  Who do you think you are talking about, anyway?  Our society is chock-full of tinkerers.  And "irrelevant" gen eds?  Mein Gott you are arrogant.  I'd ask for a specific example...but I am starting to lose interest.

The rest of that is almost unreadable.  Perhaps you should have studied harder at your "irrelevant" composition classes.

[egilson]

2. There actually never was a point where college gave people some particular set of skills that prepared them to get a job and have a satisfying life. Seriously, never.

Um, the 4 faculties in the ancient universities were Law, Medicine, Theology, and Philosophy. The first 3 led to careers in law, medicine, and the church. Philosophy covered everything else. So unless you have a very strange definition of "never", the statement above is clearly false.

I don't really know enough about the history of medieval colleges.

I do, and the statement you were responding to is wrong.

[polly_mer]

The question still remains: how much true liberal-arts education do people really get out of being marched through a box-checking process at the college level when those people aren't actually college ready and have hordes of faculty doing the minimum to keep their crummy academic jobs without the support the faculty need to give those struggling students the necessary support to succeed as students?

I was marched through a "box checking process" in basic science for my humanities degree.  I didn't want to take geology 101, but it was the only thing available. 

...

Since we're being personal, I have a fabulously cool job using my degree that I would recommend to anyone. My child attends a public school that makes national lists of good schools. I have a very nice house filled with books and enough free time to enjoy them.  As soon as I stopped working in academia and let people pay me for my skills, I more than doubled my salary by moving back to the part of the country in which I want to live.

Please, tell me again, how I really should have gone to an Nth rate regional comprehensive for my undergrad to check a bunch of minimal liberal-arts-like boxes instead of an excellent engineering school from which I graduated with zero debt and that let me do a variety of interesting things with my adult life, even if some of them didn't pay all at well at during the time.  Tell me again how my education is inferior despite currently working in a building filled with graduates from MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and other elite schools where we all have the same job here in middle age.

How's life going for you with those fabulous box-checking gen eds?  Any strong recommendations for having all 18 year olds follow your life path?  Remember how long we've known each other and the full back story.

Go ahead and wave away all those first-person narratives by adjuncts who are in very hard situations working long hours for minimal pay because I'm arrogant in wanting people to have my very good life  even when money was tight instead of one of those lives.

[Caracal]

Go ahead and wave away all those first-person narratives by adjuncts who are in very hard situations working long hours for minimal pay because I'm arrogant in wanting people to have my very good life  even when money was tight instead of one of those lives.

I really don't understand what this discussion has to do with adjuncts. The number of people who get humanities degrees is pretty large. The number who go on to get doctorates is tiny by comparison.

I'm also not really quite sure why adjuncts are this source of pity and contempt for you. Most of us are fine.

[polly_mer]

I'm also not really quite sure why adjuncts are this source of pity and contempt for you. Most of us are fine.

Yes, many adjuncts are fine. 

That doesn't stop the continuous stream of writing in a variety of outlets read by educated people by all the adjuncts who are not fine and yet somehow won't quit their death-marching and do something else that would be fine for their lives.

As I wrote recently, possibly on this thread, people who are generally happy with their lives don't tend to write at great length about how the system is broken and needs to change for their personal convenience. 

However, we have voluminous evidence of people who are unhappy with the results of their education who will flat out state that they can't get any other professional level job with their education other than stringing together poorly paid part-time faculty jobs.  Must I list some of the names over the years from these fora as individuals we know who are in pain?

That's not a heavy sigh that one has a pretty good life with that bachelor's degree and an interesting detour with the graduate studies; that's human pain that we should be taking seriously (50k unique individuals who have their own pain) and yet you want to ignore them because most people are fine?

Interesting.

It's also interesting that the assertion is how few people go to graduate school at a time when about a third of the US adult population has a bachelor's degree with about a third of them also having a graduate degree (e.g., a significant fraction of people who have a college degree also have a graduate degree). 

When I look at English and remember the statistic that about 50% of those who go to grad school drop out without the desired degree: 1.4k PhDs and 9k MAs awarded as an average for recent years(https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_ref.asp) when the BA awards have been slightly above 50k for decades (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/14/study-shows-87-decline-humanities-bachelors-degrees-2-years) looks an awful lot like about half of BA graduates going on to graduate school in recent years.