5 ms·

I upvoted you, but on the flip side, we currently have a large number of students who are coming out of college with low real-world value degrees and huge amoun

I upvoted you, but on the flip side, we currently have a large number of students who are coming out of college with low real-world value degrees and huge amounts of debt. It's probably unsustainable to have 175,000 psych and history majors[1] graduating every year with 10-20,000 dollars in debt[2]. (Not to speak of all the business/marketing majors) I'm not saying that colleges should turn into work-training programs, but there's a huge impedance mismatch between the cost of college, the skills conferred by the degrees that most people get, and the rewards for those in the workplace. At some point, the average decent public university degree (in a non hard-science) will cease to pay for itself over the long term. Then the only people doing the humanities will be those of a class privileged enough to afford them, which is an outcome that I don't think anyone wants. Even when you take into account the often generous financial aid packages in the US, costs are still spiraling compared to benefits, especially in the less lucrative degrees. 1: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/figures/fig_15.asp http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/figures/fig_15.asp 2: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/general/2006-02-22-student-loans-usat_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/general/2006-02-22-stude...

Locke1689 16y ago
However, this may simply mean that fewer people should be going to college, not that the university system has a deep flaw. If, for example, 100k psych majors are graduating only to work in social services or some slightly related field, should these people be going to college at all? Are these skills necessary for the workforce? It's important to recognize that just because we wish it were so, 50,000 psych and history majors won't suddenly switch to the hard sciences. Now, it's possible that university is instead a luxury -- if they have the money to pay for it, it's an extremely appealing situation. However, many if not most do not have the money to pay for it. In summary, I'm not sure this is a problem with universities, but with students. How do we persuade people not to go to college? P.S. When the author states that universities are weak and "ripe for takeover" he then uses STEM funding being too spread out as an argument. This is stupid because if we did consolidate STEM funding like he suggests, it would probably go to mostly the 50-100 best universities in the country. This would only solidify those schools' power and work against his entire argument.
- presidentender 16y ago
  The deep flaw is that too many people go to college for impractical degrees.
  - shadowsun7 16y ago
    Are impractical degrees that bad, in and of themselves?
    - jazzyb 16y ago
      Provided you can afford the impractical degree or you don't mind the debt to get it, then no, they're not. The problem is that people are investing tens of thousands of dollars into degrees that won't return anything on that investment. I've heard the argument that such an investment is not in money but in making one a more well-rounded person, but I've personally never understood paying so much for knowledge that can be gotten for free with the internet and a library card.
      - presidentender 16y ago
        I'm well-rounded. I can also program, do math (it's not just for high school math teachers) and speak German. Meanwhile, my friend the psych/sociology major is out of work despite intelligence and conversational aptitude, and my friend the anthropology major works at a laundromat for what would be less than minimum wage in most other states. These are people just as smart as I am, with much better GPAs. We all bought the "college => easy middle class" thing hook, line and sinker; I'm just lucky enough to have chosen a degree that pays.
    - nanairo 16y ago
      This is anecdotal, but I know of many people who got jobs from big firms during University's career fair. They were doing things like History, or English language. The reason why the employers were so keen on them was not that they were going to use the subject itself (e.g. History) but the techniques. A history graduate can read _a_lot_ quickly, summarise it, and hand you a report. Those are great skills that are often required in a job (in some jobs more than others). So impractical degrees may still be... practical. :) (that said I personally don't think a degree should be judge on how practical it is. But I agree with the poster above that if you do want to focus on things that give you better job prospects in the short run, then there are colleges (in the Canadian/UK sense of shorter, more focused higher eduction courses).
ewams 16y ago
How is this the fault of the institute? If people are pursuing what they want, and the institute is providing it, then they are succeeding in sharing knowledge. Isn't this the mission statement of most colleges and universities? There are reasons schools like ITT and University of Phoenix exist; and a whole different reason for schools like MIT, RIT, Standford, etc. to exist. People need to realize that there is no need for 175k history major graduates each year and that they will probably never use their degree. The same goes for many other majors, but you know what, if you love it, pursue it, right? Isn't that what entrepreneurship is all about? Just be realistic about your path. If the cost of schooling is getting out of hand then the people paying for it should do something about it, as some already are. See University of Puerto Rico: http://www.workers.org/2010/world/upr_0520/ http://www.workers.org/2010/world/upr_0520/
- wisty 16y ago
  The issue isn't that 175k students love history. The issue is that 175k students have been told "This degree will teach you how to think, not what to think", and that they will learn how to free their minds while contributing to the cultural dialog of the nation. It's a great hook, but it's not always true. Reality - arts degrees don't teach you how to think. They teach you how to argue more forcefully - give three reasons and a summary, not just one reason. Also, pretend to have considered the other side of the case before you dismiss it. Reality - this cultural dialog is a bunch of guys with no idea of business or economics arguing about what is, essentially, business and economics.

Locke1689 16y ago

However, this may simply mean that fewer people should be going to college, not that the university system has a deep flaw. If, for example, 100k psych majors are graduating only to work in social services or some slightly related field, should these people be going to college at all? Are these skills necessary for the workforce? It's important to recognize that just because we wish it were so, 50,000 psych and history majors won't suddenly switch to the hard sciences. Now, it's possible that university is instead a luxury -- if they have the money to pay for it, it's an extremely appealing situation. However, many if not most do not have the money to pay for it. In summary, I'm not sure this is a problem with universities, but with students. How do we persuade people not to go to college? P.S. When the author states that universities are weak and "ripe for takeover" he then uses STEM funding being too spread out as an argument. This is stupid because if we did consolidate STEM funding like he suggests, it would probably go to mostly the 50-100 best universities in the country. This would only solidify those schools' power and work against his entire argument.

presidentender 16y ago
The deep flaw is that too many people go to college for impractical degrees.
- shadowsun7 16y ago
  Are impractical degrees that bad, in and of themselves?
  - jazzyb 16y ago
    Provided you can afford the impractical degree or you don't mind the debt to get it, then no, they're not. The problem is that people are investing tens of thousands of dollars into degrees that won't return anything on that investment. I've heard the argument that such an investment is not in money but in making one a more well-rounded person, but I've personally never understood paying so much for knowledge that can be gotten for free with the internet and a library card.
    - presidentender 16y ago
      I'm well-rounded. I can also program, do math (it's not just for high school math teachers) and speak German. Meanwhile, my friend the psych/sociology major is out of work despite intelligence and conversational aptitude, and my friend the anthropology major works at a laundromat for what would be less than minimum wage in most other states. These are people just as smart as I am, with much better GPAs. We all bought the "college => easy middle class" thing hook, line and sinker; I'm just lucky enough to have chosen a degree that pays.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    This is anecdotal, but I know of many people who got jobs from big firms during University's career fair. They were doing things like History, or English language. The reason why the employers were so keen on them was not that they were going to use the subject itself (e.g. History) but the techniques. A history graduate can read _a_lot_ quickly, summarise it, and hand you a report. Those are great skills that are often required in a job (in some jobs more than others). So impractical degrees may still be... practical. :) (that said I personally don't think a degree should be judge on how practical it is. But I agree with the poster above that if you do want to focus on things that give you better job prospects in the short run, then there are colleges (in the Canadian/UK sense of shorter, more focused higher eduction courses).

ewams 16y ago

How is this the fault of the institute? If people are pursuing what they want, and the institute is providing it, then they are succeeding in sharing knowledge. Isn't this the mission statement of most colleges and universities? There are reasons schools like ITT and University of Phoenix exist; and a whole different reason for schools like MIT, RIT, Standford, etc. to exist. People need to realize that there is no need for 175k history major graduates each year and that they will probably never use their degree. The same goes for many other majors, but you know what, if you love it, pursue it, right? Isn't that what entrepreneurship is all about? Just be realistic about your path. If the cost of schooling is getting out of hand then the people paying for it should do something about it, as some already are. See University of Puerto Rico: http://www.workers.org/2010/world/upr_0520/ http://www.workers.org/2010/world/upr_0520/

wisty 16y ago
The issue isn't that 175k students love history. The issue is that 175k students have been told "This degree will teach you how to think, not what to think", and that they will learn how to free their minds while contributing to the cultural dialog of the nation. It's a great hook, but it's not always true. Reality - arts degrees don't teach you how to think. They teach you how to argue more forcefully - give three reasons and a summary, not just one reason. Also, pretend to have considered the other side of the case before you dismiss it. Reality - this cultural dialog is a bunch of guys with no idea of business or economics arguing about what is, essentially, business and economics.