7 ms·

It seems clear that the American university system is fed by a largely inelastic demand and isolated from larger market forces, thanks in part to the endless sp

by thearn4 10y ago

It seems clear that the American university system is fed by a largely inelastic demand and isolated from larger market forces, thanks in part to the endless spigot of federal loan money (complimented by the strong preference of employers towards traditional degree holders). What is less clear to me is how to fix this in a reasonable, least-damaging way.

vkou 10y ago
Ban education discrimination against job applicants. (Except for jobs which require certification). Right now, there is no drawback for an employer requiring a bachelor's degree for a job that has no use for it. Putting an end to this practice will stop the pointless rat race. Alternatively, cap student loans, and put lower boundaries on what % of tuition goes towards instruction. Most tuition funds do not go towards education, and there is a lot of pressure for universities to spend them on building Potemkin villages.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > Right now, there is no drawback for an employer requiring a bachelor's degree for a job that has no use for it. Increase an employer's taxes commensurate with the cost of the education for the workers they hire. If you truly need workers with bachelors, masters, PhDs, you pay for the cost. Internalize the externality.
  - SamReidHughes 10y ago
    Instead of taxing through their employers, why not just tax higher-educated employees directly?
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      What would be the goal of that? If someone has more education than is needed for a job but ends up taking it for other reasons, should they be taxed more than their less educated coworker? The idea with taxing the credentialed position is that it provides some incentive to not attach a credential to positions.
      - SamReidHughes 10y ago
        > What would be the goal of that? You should ask the parent, not me. I do not advocate taxing getting an education, whether you do it directly on indirectly. Besides, in either case, such a tax would infringe on free speech.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        My question is about what you said. The 2 proposals have very different incentives and will likely have different outcomes. The parent of your post did not propose what you did, your idea has poor incentives for people seeking education and can be expected to have 0 influence on employers. Their idea has little impact on incentives for individuals seeking education and can be expected to encourage employers to consider the necessity of an educational requirement for a given job. Do you really see them as equivalently arbitrary hurdles to employment?
        SamReidHughes 10y ago
        Not at all. The incentives behind an income tax don't change based on whether they're paid on the employee's side or the employer's side. If you're an employee that costs 5% more to hire, you're going to get paid less. (Unless the idea is that taxes should be based on whether or not a job posting requires a degree. But that would be silly, because employers could omit the education requirement from the job posting but still hire the best candidates, or have the need for a credential be taken for granted via codewords like "engineer.")
        maxerickson 10y ago
        The incentives for roles where the credential is reasonable don't change. The incentives for the roles where the credential is meaningless change because the employer can choose not to pay the tax (by removing the requirement for the credential). Under your proposal the employee can't.
        10y ago
    - SixSigma 10y ago
      Maybe through a series of expensive loans for tuition....
  - vkou 10y ago
    That's an interesting idea (In that it reduces the amount of zero-training freeloading employers can do), but without other changes, I feel that it would make the problem worse - it would increase the guaranteed fire-hose of money that educational institutions will receive. Limiting the firehose to departments that add economic value won't fix the other wasteful practices.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      > but without other changes, I feel that it would make the problem worse I agree. It must be enacted in concert with the equivalent of single payer education.
    - SamReidHughes 10y ago
      > In that it reduces the amount of zero-training freeloading employers can do I'm confused why you think not training employees constitutes "freeloading." Employers are paying wages on an open market for employees that come pre-trained.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        Because the government subsidizes that training. If it didn't, there would be far fewer trained employees for employers to choose from, wages would go up, and employers would have to shoulder more of the burden of training.
        SamReidHughes 10y ago
        I guess that's the sense in which it was meant, and I missed that. On the other hand, that money isn't all pocketed by the employer -- it gets passed on through prices and quality to the employer's customers, and so on. The freeloading is enjoyed by the rest of the economy. (In fact, that freeloading effect is the justification most people give for publicly funding education.)
- dragontamer 10y ago
  > Right now, there is no drawback for an employer requiring a bachelor's degree Erm... how about fewer applicants and higher wages? The average bachelor graduate will demand higher wages than the average high-school graduate. The market is demanding higher education for some reason. If you think its immoral that's one thing... but its completely different to argue that there is "no drawback". Walmart isn't asking for bachelor degrees to fill in their "Walmart Greeter" or "Walmart Cashier" positions.
  - randyrand 10y ago
    Your explanation of economics really hurts me to read =/ > The average bachelor graduate will demand higher wages than the average high-school graduate. In economics the word 'demand' does not mean 'demanding' your wage or 'demanding' a certain price. Economics demand is how many people want something at a certain price. Lets repeat that. 'Demand'... is how many people... want something ...at a certain price. It's not at all related to literally "demanding higher or lower wages", or "demanding higher or lower prices" as you are suggesting -- that is the colloquial definition of demand, and IMO it really should not be used when talking about economics. They can't be substituted for each other.
    - pc86 10y ago
      A. That's not even remotely related to any definition of "collective bargaining" I've ever heard of. B. I think it's pretty clear what the parent meant by "demand." C. Semantics aside, cp the market clearly bears much higher salaries for a candidate with a Bachelor's degree than for one without. D. Your comment is needlessly rude.
      - randyrand 10y ago
        A. I was not defining collective bargaining, just giving an example of the difference between colloquial and economics demand. But lets just ignore that point as its largely unrelated. I removed it from my original comment. B. No, it is not clear, IMO. His use makes it seem like he is actually referring to demand, when in fact he is using the colloquial definition. People routinely confuse the two. C. Semantics become important when things become ambiguous and confusing. Most programmers would likely agree with this. D. Fair.
- lettergram 10y ago
  I really want my aerospace engineers to be able to do math... Universities accredit them, so companies don't have to spend their money doing it (via a ridiculous number of interviews). Interviewing is already one of the largest sinks of money for a largish company, no need to make it worse. Far better, would removing the guaranteed loan payback the government provides. This would force universities to lower prices as students wouldn't be eligible for loans. Further, it increases the barrier to universities, meaning less people will have degrees and in turn companies would have an incentive to hire people without degrees. Plus people with degrees would get paid more (making it easier to pay off loans). The whole issue is universities aren't having to deal with market forces. Add back in the incentives and it'll be 10x cheaper.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Your aerospace engineers already need to pass engineering certification. My fast food franchise managers, on the other hand, need to show up, and apply a little common sense.
    - thearn4 10y ago
      > Your aerospace engineers already need to pass engineering certification Generally not in the U.S., unless it's a civil or electrical engineer designing infrastructure. I say this as an aerospace engineer with a mathematics PhD only.
  - aantix 10y ago
    You already have to interview the candidate; surely asking a question specific to your industry also will demonstrate their proficiencies in the math skills that you're concerned with? I can't imagine taking it for granted that because a University has certified someone that they're already proficient in the fundamentals? In fact, isn't that part of the problem? I once interviewed a CS grad from MIT for a mid-level software engineering position; smart guy. Couldn't code. Sorry sir, but we need someone that can contribute immediately. We don't care about your school. We care about your output. Next.
    - 10y ago
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Great idea! 1: Job gets posted 2: High school graduate applies 3: Manager searches applicant and sees no higher education 4: "Thank you for your interest in this position, however we are looking for someone with a little more experience."
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    It's going to have to be phrased better than that, because (for the same age), the person who stopped at high school has more experience.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      At coding?
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Potentially even at coding, yes, though the discussion has been more about general employment, not specifically coding.
        rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Yeah but a even decade of bagging groceries doesn't mean a thing in a professional context, except maybe demonstrating how well one can put up with bagging groceries for ten years.
  - danielweber 10y ago
    That same workaround should work for discriminating against people based on sex or race.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      And as we all learned in Training Day: it's not what you know, it's what you can prove in court.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  It's not JUST the education though. Holding a degree shows you're capable of following a schedule, arriving to predetermined places on time regularly, keeping yourself relatively organized, receiving and completing assignments from authority, and are willing to work hard at things that aren't immediately obviously essential but you do them anyway.
  - vkou 10y ago
    So does graduating high school... Or having a previous job where you got a good reference. Or passing a probationary period.
    - FussyZeus 10y ago
      High school is mandatory though, and enforced via truancy laws. The only consequence to not showing up for college courses is wasting your (probably borrowed) money.
      - vkou 10y ago
        So is gainful employment - it's enforced via poverty, homelessness, and early death... Yet, just because most of us show up to work under duress, doesn't diminish the value of work experience.
  - steffan 10y ago
    That used to be true in the case of a high school diploma as well. As a society, we've diluted the value of that to the extent that you need to see a 4-year degree to determine those things. Even a four-year degree seems to be diluted to the point that I wonder if we'll start require a Master's degree just to ensure someone is capable of reasonably correct written communication.
  - mulcahey 10y ago
    > willing to work hard at things that aren't immediately obviously essential but you do them anyway. I view this as actually one of the biggest problems with current pedagogies and curriculum structures. They don't teach the why of things[1] and so students either are unmotivated because it seems meaningless to them, or the ones who follow blindly on faith, who think less for themselves, end up looking like the smart ones. But then maybe that's what some employers are looking for. As Musk puts it, they fail to teach to the problem instead of the tools.[2] [1] https://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=35m2s https://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=35m2s [2] https://youtu.be/3UxL-0--oQo?t=25m25s https://youtu.be/3UxL-0--oQo?t=25m25s
- gherkin0 10y ago
  > Ban education discrimination against job applicants. (Except for jobs which require certification). All that will do is create a regime of required certifications that people will need to get a job, and it will probably greatly reduce (individual) employment flexibility. Employers need some way of judging applicants ability, and it's my understanding that explicit aptitude tests have basically been banned, employers have to use education as a proxy. > put lower boundaries on what % of tuition goes towards instruction. Most tuition funds do not go towards education, and there is a lot of pressure for universities to spend them on building Potemkin villages. I think this is a much more reasonable suggestion. Cut out all the extra costs and make college a spartan environment focused on learning.
- marincounty 10y ago
  I always felt a rigorous test could be administered, and tailored to specific job applicants. And yes, if we had tough tests, make it illegial for an employer to even ask where you went to school. For example, if a person can pass the CA bar, let him/her practice law? I bring up the CA bar test because it's especially hard. There are some professions that wouldn't lend themselfs to testing, but they would be the exception.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Bad example. You can do it! http://www.cbtronline.com/index.php/californias-law-office-study-program http://www.cbtronline.com/index.php/californias-law-office-s...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- danielweber 10y ago
  I like this idea, and have recommended it before. A partial step towards that end would be to return to the situation 20 years where student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy. This would indirectly put the pressure on the other parts of the system that never cared what kind of debt load the student was being saddled with.
replicatorblog 10y ago
Probably impossible politically and even difficult operationally, but cutting off the federal funds would go a long way towards getting these institutions to get competitive. Texas has been piloting programs that grant BA's for $10K. Not per year, all in (https://www.texastribune.org/2013/01/30/guide-getting-one-texas-new-10000-degrees/ https://www.texastribune.org/2013/01/30/guide-getting-one-te...). If Texas can do it, why not more schools. There will always be a place for elite educational institutions, the Rolls Royce of higher ed, but there should be a Toyota Corolla equivalent as well. This program in Texas proves that it is possible.
- intrasight 10y ago
  Makes sense that the states will have to lead the way. And if those programs don't accept federal funds, then that becomes a powerful vote against the current paradigm.
the_watcher 10y ago
It is clear and it's not in part, it's entirely caused by.
- mulcahey 10y ago
  State funding has also drastically decreased. But perhaps that's because the federal government was willing to help out instead: https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d6bcc38832f7f3716570d302f4acb5c8?convert_to_webp=true https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d6bcc38832f7f3716570d3...
thescriptkiddie 10y ago
Here's an idea. Instead of using federal funds to subsidize the student loan industry, give that money straight to public colleges so they don't have to charge tuition anymore.

by thearn4 10y ago

vkou 10y ago

Ban education discrimination against job applicants. (Except for jobs which require certification). Right now, there is no drawback for an employer requiring a bachelor's degree for a job that has no use for it. Putting an end to this practice will stop the pointless rat race. Alternatively, cap student loans, and put lower boundaries on what % of tuition goes towards instruction. Most tuition funds do not go towards education, and there is a lot of pressure for universities to spend them on building Potemkin villages.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> Right now, there is no drawback for an employer requiring a bachelor's degree for a job that has no use for it. Increase an employer's taxes commensurate with the cost of the education for the workers they hire. If you truly need workers with bachelors, masters, PhDs, you pay for the cost. Internalize the externality.
- SamReidHughes 10y ago
  Instead of taxing through their employers, why not just tax higher-educated employees directly?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    What would be the goal of that? If someone has more education than is needed for a job but ends up taking it for other reasons, should they be taxed more than their less educated coworker? The idea with taxing the credentialed position is that it provides some incentive to not attach a credential to positions.
    - SamReidHughes 10y ago
      > What would be the goal of that? You should ask the parent, not me. I do not advocate taxing getting an education, whether you do it directly on indirectly. Besides, in either case, such a tax would infringe on free speech.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        My question is about what you said. The 2 proposals have very different incentives and will likely have different outcomes. The parent of your post did not propose what you did, your idea has poor incentives for people seeking education and can be expected to have 0 influence on employers. Their idea has little impact on incentives for individuals seeking education and can be expected to encourage employers to consider the necessity of an educational requirement for a given job. Do you really see them as equivalently arbitrary hurdles to employment?
        SamReidHughes 10y ago
        Not at all. The incentives behind an income tax don't change based on whether they're paid on the employee's side or the employer's side. If you're an employee that costs 5% more to hire, you're going to get paid less. (Unless the idea is that taxes should be based on whether or not a job posting requires a degree. But that would be silly, because employers could omit the education requirement from the job posting but still hire the best candidates, or have the need for a credential be taken for granted via codewords like "engineer.")
        maxerickson 10y ago
        The incentives for roles where the credential is reasonable don't change. The incentives for the roles where the credential is meaningless change because the employer can choose not to pay the tax (by removing the requirement for the credential). Under your proposal the employee can't.
        10y ago
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    Maybe through a series of expensive loans for tuition....
- vkou 10y ago
  That's an interesting idea (In that it reduces the amount of zero-training freeloading employers can do), but without other changes, I feel that it would make the problem worse - it would increase the guaranteed fire-hose of money that educational institutions will receive. Limiting the firehose to departments that add economic value won't fix the other wasteful practices.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    > but without other changes, I feel that it would make the problem worse I agree. It must be enacted in concert with the equivalent of single payer education.
  - SamReidHughes 10y ago
    > In that it reduces the amount of zero-training freeloading employers can do I'm confused why you think not training employees constitutes "freeloading." Employers are paying wages on an open market for employees that come pre-trained.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      Because the government subsidizes that training. If it didn't, there would be far fewer trained employees for employers to choose from, wages would go up, and employers would have to shoulder more of the burden of training.
      - SamReidHughes 10y ago
        I guess that's the sense in which it was meant, and I missed that. On the other hand, that money isn't all pocketed by the employer -- it gets passed on through prices and quality to the employer's customers, and so on. The freeloading is enjoyed by the rest of the economy. (In fact, that freeloading effect is the justification most people give for publicly funding education.)
dragontamer 10y ago
> Right now, there is no drawback for an employer requiring a bachelor's degree Erm... how about fewer applicants and higher wages? The average bachelor graduate will demand higher wages than the average high-school graduate. The market is demanding higher education for some reason. If you think its immoral that's one thing... but its completely different to argue that there is "no drawback". Walmart isn't asking for bachelor degrees to fill in their "Walmart Greeter" or "Walmart Cashier" positions.
- randyrand 10y ago
  Your explanation of economics really hurts me to read =/ > The average bachelor graduate will demand higher wages than the average high-school graduate. In economics the word 'demand' does not mean 'demanding' your wage or 'demanding' a certain price. Economics demand is how many people want something at a certain price. Lets repeat that. 'Demand'... is how many people... want something ...at a certain price. It's not at all related to literally "demanding higher or lower wages", or "demanding higher or lower prices" as you are suggesting -- that is the colloquial definition of demand, and IMO it really should not be used when talking about economics. They can't be substituted for each other.
  - pc86 10y ago
    A. That's not even remotely related to any definition of "collective bargaining" I've ever heard of. B. I think it's pretty clear what the parent meant by "demand." C. Semantics aside, cp the market clearly bears much higher salaries for a candidate with a Bachelor's degree than for one without. D. Your comment is needlessly rude.
    - randyrand 10y ago
      A. I was not defining collective bargaining, just giving an example of the difference between colloquial and economics demand. But lets just ignore that point as its largely unrelated. I removed it from my original comment. B. No, it is not clear, IMO. His use makes it seem like he is actually referring to demand, when in fact he is using the colloquial definition. People routinely confuse the two. C. Semantics become important when things become ambiguous and confusing. Most programmers would likely agree with this. D. Fair.
lettergram 10y ago
I really want my aerospace engineers to be able to do math... Universities accredit them, so companies don't have to spend their money doing it (via a ridiculous number of interviews). Interviewing is already one of the largest sinks of money for a largish company, no need to make it worse. Far better, would removing the guaranteed loan payback the government provides. This would force universities to lower prices as students wouldn't be eligible for loans. Further, it increases the barrier to universities, meaning less people will have degrees and in turn companies would have an incentive to hire people without degrees. Plus people with degrees would get paid more (making it easier to pay off loans). The whole issue is universities aren't having to deal with market forces. Add back in the incentives and it'll be 10x cheaper.
- vkou 10y ago
  Your aerospace engineers already need to pass engineering certification. My fast food franchise managers, on the other hand, need to show up, and apply a little common sense.
  - thearn4 10y ago
    > Your aerospace engineers already need to pass engineering certification Generally not in the U.S., unless it's a civil or electrical engineer designing infrastructure. I say this as an aerospace engineer with a mathematics PhD only.
- aantix 10y ago
  You already have to interview the candidate; surely asking a question specific to your industry also will demonstrate their proficiencies in the math skills that you're concerned with? I can't imagine taking it for granted that because a University has certified someone that they're already proficient in the fundamentals? In fact, isn't that part of the problem? I once interviewed a CS grad from MIT for a mid-level software engineering position; smart guy. Couldn't code. Sorry sir, but we need someone that can contribute immediately. We don't care about your school. We care about your output. Next.
  - 10y ago
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Great idea! 1: Job gets posted 2: High school graduate applies 3: Manager searches applicant and sees no higher education 4: "Thank you for your interest in this position, however we are looking for someone with a little more experience."
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  It's going to have to be phrased better than that, because (for the same age), the person who stopped at high school has more experience.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    At coding?
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      Potentially even at coding, yes, though the discussion has been more about general employment, not specifically coding.
      - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Yeah but a even decade of bagging groceries doesn't mean a thing in a professional context, except maybe demonstrating how well one can put up with bagging groceries for ten years.
- danielweber 10y ago
  That same workaround should work for discriminating against people based on sex or race.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    And as we all learned in Training Day: it's not what you know, it's what you can prove in court.
FussyZeus 10y ago
It's not JUST the education though. Holding a degree shows you're capable of following a schedule, arriving to predetermined places on time regularly, keeping yourself relatively organized, receiving and completing assignments from authority, and are willing to work hard at things that aren't immediately obviously essential but you do them anyway.
- vkou 10y ago
  So does graduating high school... Or having a previous job where you got a good reference. Or passing a probationary period.
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    High school is mandatory though, and enforced via truancy laws. The only consequence to not showing up for college courses is wasting your (probably borrowed) money.
    - vkou 10y ago
      So is gainful employment - it's enforced via poverty, homelessness, and early death... Yet, just because most of us show up to work under duress, doesn't diminish the value of work experience.
- steffan 10y ago
  That used to be true in the case of a high school diploma as well. As a society, we've diluted the value of that to the extent that you need to see a 4-year degree to determine those things. Even a four-year degree seems to be diluted to the point that I wonder if we'll start require a Master's degree just to ensure someone is capable of reasonably correct written communication.
- mulcahey 10y ago
  > willing to work hard at things that aren't immediately obviously essential but you do them anyway. I view this as actually one of the biggest problems with current pedagogies and curriculum structures. They don't teach the why of things[1] and so students either are unmotivated because it seems meaningless to them, or the ones who follow blindly on faith, who think less for themselves, end up looking like the smart ones. But then maybe that's what some employers are looking for. As Musk puts it, they fail to teach to the problem instead of the tools.[2] [1] https://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=35m2s https://youtu.be/vDwzmJpI4io?t=35m2s [2] https://youtu.be/3UxL-0--oQo?t=25m25s https://youtu.be/3UxL-0--oQo?t=25m25s
gherkin0 10y ago
> Ban education discrimination against job applicants. (Except for jobs which require certification). All that will do is create a regime of required certifications that people will need to get a job, and it will probably greatly reduce (individual) employment flexibility. Employers need some way of judging applicants ability, and it's my understanding that explicit aptitude tests have basically been banned, employers have to use education as a proxy. > put lower boundaries on what % of tuition goes towards instruction. Most tuition funds do not go towards education, and there is a lot of pressure for universities to spend them on building Potemkin villages. I think this is a much more reasonable suggestion. Cut out all the extra costs and make college a spartan environment focused on learning.
marincounty 10y ago
I always felt a rigorous test could be administered, and tailored to specific job applicants. And yes, if we had tough tests, make it illegial for an employer to even ask where you went to school. For example, if a person can pass the CA bar, let him/her practice law? I bring up the CA bar test because it's especially hard. There are some professions that wouldn't lend themselfs to testing, but they would be the exception.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Bad example. You can do it! http://www.cbtronline.com/index.php/californias-law-office-study-program http://www.cbtronline.com/index.php/californias-law-office-s...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
danielweber 10y ago
I like this idea, and have recommended it before. A partial step towards that end would be to return to the situation 20 years where student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy. This would indirectly put the pressure on the other parts of the system that never cared what kind of debt load the student was being saddled with.

replicatorblog 10y ago

Probably impossible politically and even difficult operationally, but cutting off the federal funds would go a long way towards getting these institutions to get competitive. Texas has been piloting programs that grant BA's for $10K. Not per year, all in (https://www.texastribune.org/2013/01/30/guide-getting-one-texas-new-10000-degrees/ https://www.texastribune.org/2013/01/30/guide-getting-one-te...). If Texas can do it, why not more schools. There will always be a place for elite educational institutions, the Rolls Royce of higher ed, but there should be a Toyota Corolla equivalent as well. This program in Texas proves that it is possible.

intrasight 10y ago
Makes sense that the states will have to lead the way. And if those programs don't accept federal funds, then that becomes a powerful vote against the current paradigm.

the_watcher 10y ago

It is clear and it's not in part, it's entirely caused by.

mulcahey 10y ago
State funding has also drastically decreased. But perhaps that's because the federal government was willing to help out instead: https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d6bcc38832f7f3716570d302f4acb5c8?convert_to_webp=true https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d6bcc38832f7f3716570d3...

thescriptkiddie 10y ago

Here's an idea. Instead of using federal funds to subsidize the student loan industry, give that money straight to public colleges so they don't have to charge tuition anymore.