6 ms·

The Death Of Bundling In University Education?

24 points by bgray 15y ago

yummyfajitas 15y ago
The article makes a strong, unsupported assumption: that "subsidizing...the broad education of a well-informed citizenry" is a "public good". I'd be curious to hear some sort of justification for this. In short, how do I (as a member of the public) benefit from a waiter with a degree in women's studies or some similar degree with little economic value?
- delinka 15y ago
  I think the implied message is that an educated citizenry is better equipped to deal in the world than an uneducated citizenry. If you are uneducated, you're less likely to manage resources or more likely to become a victim (of unscrupulous individuals or businesses.) To that end, society should be providing for the public good by providing an education to the citizenry. However, I don't see the education system as providing the kind of education that makes people "well-informed." I know plenty of people with a degree and not a lick of common sense who ... become victims in some way or another. (e.g. Why can't they identify a financial scam when one comes along?) This kind of education should have happened long before postsecondary education is available to an individual. This way, he can decide for himself whether that university degree will actually do him any good in the future. Should the public provide university educations to everyone? If that's the measure by which individuals are allowed to participate in the economy by being employees, then I say yes. Corporations cannot be expected to educate any of their own employees because it's a drain on the balance sheet - The Market will not create educated individuals left to its own devices. One should desire to be educated, informed and knowledgeable from early on in life. Too often, children are sent to school because parents need childcare, not because they value an education for their children. If children aren't encouraged to perform, then they don't. This goes for being educated as well as sports and the arts.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    Corporations cannot be expected to educate any of their own employees because it's a drain on the balance sheet - The Market will not create educated individuals left to its own devices. Corporations educate their employees all the time. My company does this. So does Walmart, McD's, Accenture, Infosys and Goldman Sachs (to name a few). http://walmartstores.com/careers/7740.aspx http://walmartstores.com/careers/7740.aspx http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/careers/hamburger_university.html http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/careers/hamburger_universi...
    - delinka 15y ago
      Of course companies educate their employees ... around the specific skills involved in working for their company. They, the companies, couldn't care less about the general education of their employees. It doesn't matter to them which insurance plan you pick or if you go to some investment guy that rips you off.
- drcube 15y ago
  Just a guess, but I would suppose that in an information rich world, it pays for people to be intellectually satisfied even if they don't work in an "intellectual" field. A waiter with a theater degree may be more content, and therefore more effective/productive, than a waiter who wishes he could get a degree but can't.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    In what way would the waiter be more effective/productive? Would the theater degree enable him to write down orders more accurately or bring food more quickly?
    - 5teev 15y ago
      You seem pretty worried about the waiters, so here's a hypothetical direct benefit of educating them: Maybe the theater degree will offer the waiter more opportunities for self-fulfillment outside of work. Consequently he won't be consumed with bitterness and resentment of the people he waits on, perhaps people educated in some worthier endeavor he couldn't, or wouldn't, pursue. And he won't spit in your food.
      - yummyfajitas 15y ago
        Maybe the theater degree will offer the waiter more opportunities for self-fulfillment outside of work. This is a private benefit, not a public one. And he won't spit in your food. So the primary purpose in giving people economically worthless education is to prevent them from committing crimes?
        gte910h 15y ago
        I consider lower crime rates a public good.
        pyre 15y ago
        People that are unsatisfied with their lives are more likely to commit crimes. Depending on how much they think they have to lose, they may commit wildly irrational crimes as well.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  As I'm sure you know Jefferson was one of the big proponents of a well-informed citizenry in order to maintain a functioning democracy. At the end of the day the title of the degree doesn't matter. Whether its Women's Studies, Math, or Seafood Prep, it's more about learning to use analytical skills to look at problems. The idea being these skills are translatable. I do like the idea of college. I do like the idea that you've spent four years thinking. I do sometimes feel college is waster on the young. If society functioned in a way such that you could work for 10 years and go back to college at age 30 I think people would derive much more value from it, even for degrees with no direct economic value.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    The idea being these skills are translatable. In that case, Math is always superior to Women's studies. Math is economically beneficial and also helps maintain a functioning democracy. Women's studies only does the latter. Following this logic, the author is incorrect that the public goods are being unbundled from the private goods.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      Well given the high numbers of math majors who go to work on finance one could argue that it's economically less beneficial. :-)
  - tokenadult 15y ago
    I'm sure you know Jefferson was one of the big proponents of a well-informed citizenry in order to maintain a functioning democracy. Yes, Jefferson generally expressed the opinion that an educated citizenry is beneficial to a country, and I have often expressed agreement with that opinion. But it is important to note that Jefferson did not support making school attendance compulsory, nor did he think that education should be provided solely by state governments. Jefferson received more nonparental schooling than the other three presidents depicted on Mount Rushmore combined, first at home with a hired tutor in Tuckahoe, where Jefferson's father moved when Jefferson was two to be guardian for his wife's late cousin's son. At age nine Thomas Jefferson was placed as a boarding student in the one-room "Latin school" kept by the Reverend William Douglas, minister of St. James Parish. Thomas Jefferson's later letters reveal Jefferson didn't think Reverend Douglas really knew the subject matter very well. Thomas Jefferson's studies with that teacher ended at the age of fourteen, when his father died. Thomas Jefferson then was sent to the five-student school kept by the Reverend James Maury, whose son was one of the other students in the school. Jefferson spent many hours walking in the woods or practicing the violin while studying there. Jefferson then again stopped attending school briefly before traveling to Williamsburg to attend the College of William and Mary. William Small was Thomas Jefferson's favorite member of the college's seven-man faculty. Jefferson was remembered in later years by his classmates for his diligence in independently reading books until late at night. After two years, Jefferson completed his studies at William and Mary and then studied law by working with a Williamsburg lawyer from 1762 to 1766. Jefferson, after retiring from his rather trouble-plagued presidency, spent years planning a system of publicly subsidized schools in Virginia. He wrote extensively to other planners of that project, and many of his letters from that period survive and have been reprinted. He was convinced from his extensive observations of society in America and in Europe that parental control was vital for schools: "But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the Governor and Council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience. Try the principle one step further and amend the bill so as to commit to the Governor and Council the management of all our farms, our mills, and merchants' stores." Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, Feb. 2, 1816, reprinted in Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson (1955), page 98 and in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1904), volume 14, pages 420-21. In other words, it is as ridiculous to have governments, especially governments of broad territorial units, operate schools as it is to have governments operate grocery stores or farms. But of course socialist countries around the world have tried the experiment of governments running farms and stores, always with disastrous results, and almost every country in the world today has government-operated schools. Perhaps it is time to listen again to Jefferson's advice. Jefferson was quite consistent on this point of preferring private operation of schools, however much those schools were publicly funded and open to all members of the public. In a state of the Union address during his second term as president, Jefferson noted: "It [should not] be proposed to take ordinary branches [of education] out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." Thomas Jefferson, sixth annual message to Congress (1806), reprinted in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1907), volume 14, page 384. Jefferson most definitely supported public funding of schools, but made clear he opposed compulsory attendance. "Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? . . . It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father. What is proposed here is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis . . . Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, September 9, 1817, reprinted in Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1904) volume 17, page 423.
- tzs 15y ago
  A broadly educated well-informed citizenry would insure that the phrases "president Palin" and "president Bachmann" would never occur in any context other than jokes.
- Spyro7 15y ago
  In economics a public good is defined as a good that is both non-rivalrous and non-excludable. In other words, a public good is defined as a product or service where the following are True: - An additional consumer of the product or service does not impact the ability of others to consume - It is not possible to prevent someone from consuming the good A good example of a public good is something like national defense. A bad example of a public good is university education. University education meets neither of the criteria necessary in order to be classified as a public good. I think that what the author means to say is that there are positive externalities that are associated with the provision of public universities. While your conceptual waiter with a degree in women's studies is a dubious example of the benefits of education, there is some evidence available that suggests that the availability of education is, in the aggregate, strongly correlated with certain positive societal outcomes. This is a bit outside of my areas of study, so I am not able to suggest specific readings. However, I can point you in the general direction of a couple of Google scholar search results: - Education and Crime Reduction: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=education+and+crime http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=education+and+crime - Education and Macroeconomic Effects: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=education+and+human+capital http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=education+and+... Of course, there is also some evidence that strongly calls into question the general purpose of post-secondary education. Is post-secondary education beneficial in its own right or is post-secondary education simply another useful bullet point on a resume? Is it a signaling mechanism or is it a valuable addition to society? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics) (Yes, I know that this is wikipedia, but it is a nice article.) Edit: I clicked update too fast the first time. I nearly forgot to say. If the primary benefit of post-secondary education is that it provides a useful signal, then it stands to reason that there may be more cost-effective ways of achieving this end.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
smcj 15y ago
I found the authors mistake: "But now that students and parents are paying the majority of the cost of the education [...]" WTH? Every society which basically favours people with deep pockets instead of intelligent, gifted people (and don't let yourself be fooled by "scholarships") is heading for a huge failure. Real scientific research, political progress and prosperity of the nation will suffer from it (which is exactly what you can observe in the US).
- endtime 15y ago
  In a capitalist society, "people with deep pockets" is an approximation of "capable people".
  - pyre 15y ago
    So capitalist societies don't have inheritance?
    - learc83 15y ago
      In the U.S %69 of billionaires earned their wealth. The percentage of millionaires who earned their wealth is even higher. It's a commonly held misconception that most of the wealthy inherit their money. Yes there are plenty of people who are capable, but not wealthy and vice versa. However, the OP didn't say "wealthy people == capable people". He said wealthy people are "...an approximation of "capable people" Btw I'm not going to bother to include sources on my claim. If you want to validate it, the sources are easy to find. I'm not going to bother proviin
    - endtime 15y ago
      First of all, I said "approximation". Second of all, genes and values are inherited as well.
      - pyre 15y ago
        Is that really the case though? There have been plenty of cases where the subsequent generations have let the wealth crumble (or at least pieces of it, like historic mansions, etc).
WWWWH 15y ago
OK, this is interesting but as best I can tell he's talking about splitting profitable from unprofitable courses. But there is another way of drawing the line between the functions of modern unis. The offer is; + undergraduate education + postgraduate education (including research degrees) + scientific and engineering research + research and scholarship in the humanities + nationally televised sports (subset of US only) + We provide accommodation + A social experience for late teens / early twenties + We set and assess exams (could split again here) + We provide accreditation (our courses are worthwhile as we say they are; this is complex, though, and depends on course, jurisdiction, much more) + We provided a branded experience ("I went to M...") Now it is unlikely that universities that offer much of this will ever split out the functions (Vince Cable suggested it in the UK and didn't get very far). What do you reckon on the chances of some nimble new entrants taking away some of this business from the incumbents? [edited to try and get the list to work]
- justincormack 15y ago
  Well in the UK we had a huge number of recent new entrants to the market (polytechnics, fe colleges etc), whole sets of mergers. And the number of customers increased a lot, probably past the point where the returns are positive. London has recently seen a huge new market in student accomodation. Universities are providing branded courses overseas. Only the postgrad situation is arguably stagnent in terms of innovation.
dotBen 15y ago
Did anyone else think this was something completely different? For those of us with a British education "bundling" in education means something very different... Best demonstrated via video I think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ6lsa3V5SA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ6lsa3V5SA (safe for work)

24 points by bgray 15y ago

The article makes a strong, unsupported assumption: that "subsidizing...the broad education of a well-informed citizenry" is a "public good". I'd be curious to hear some sort of justification for this. In short, how do I (as a member of the public) benefit from a waiter with a degree in women's studies or some similar degree with little economic value?

delinka 15y ago
I think the implied message is that an educated citizenry is better equipped to deal in the world than an uneducated citizenry. If you are uneducated, you're less likely to manage resources or more likely to become a victim (of unscrupulous individuals or businesses.) To that end, society should be providing for the public good by providing an education to the citizenry. However, I don't see the education system as providing the kind of education that makes people "well-informed." I know plenty of people with a degree and not a lick of common sense who ... become victims in some way or another. (e.g. Why can't they identify a financial scam when one comes along?) This kind of education should have happened long before postsecondary education is available to an individual. This way, he can decide for himself whether that university degree will actually do him any good in the future. Should the public provide university educations to everyone? If that's the measure by which individuals are allowed to participate in the economy by being employees, then I say yes. Corporations cannot be expected to educate any of their own employees because it's a drain on the balance sheet - The Market will not create educated individuals left to its own devices. One should desire to be educated, informed and knowledgeable from early on in life. Too often, children are sent to school because parents need childcare, not because they value an education for their children. If children aren't encouraged to perform, then they don't. This goes for being educated as well as sports and the arts.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  Corporations cannot be expected to educate any of their own employees because it's a drain on the balance sheet - The Market will not create educated individuals left to its own devices. Corporations educate their employees all the time. My company does this. So does Walmart, McD's, Accenture, Infosys and Goldman Sachs (to name a few). http://walmartstores.com/careers/7740.aspx http://walmartstores.com/careers/7740.aspx http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/careers/hamburger_university.html http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/careers/hamburger_universi...
  - delinka 15y ago
    Of course companies educate their employees ... around the specific skills involved in working for their company. They, the companies, couldn't care less about the general education of their employees. It doesn't matter to them which insurance plan you pick or if you go to some investment guy that rips you off.
drcube 15y ago
Just a guess, but I would suppose that in an information rich world, it pays for people to be intellectually satisfied even if they don't work in an "intellectual" field. A waiter with a theater degree may be more content, and therefore more effective/productive, than a waiter who wishes he could get a degree but can't.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  In what way would the waiter be more effective/productive? Would the theater degree enable him to write down orders more accurately or bring food more quickly?
  - 5teev 15y ago
    You seem pretty worried about the waiters, so here's a hypothetical direct benefit of educating them: Maybe the theater degree will offer the waiter more opportunities for self-fulfillment outside of work. Consequently he won't be consumed with bitterness and resentment of the people he waits on, perhaps people educated in some worthier endeavor he couldn't, or wouldn't, pursue. And he won't spit in your food.
    - yummyfajitas 15y ago
      Maybe the theater degree will offer the waiter more opportunities for self-fulfillment outside of work. This is a private benefit, not a public one. And he won't spit in your food. So the primary purpose in giving people economically worthless education is to prevent them from committing crimes?
      - gte910h 15y ago
        I consider lower crime rates a public good.
      - pyre 15y ago
        People that are unsatisfied with their lives are more likely to commit crimes. Depending on how much they think they have to lose, they may commit wildly irrational crimes as well.
kenjackson 15y ago
As I'm sure you know Jefferson was one of the big proponents of a well-informed citizenry in order to maintain a functioning democracy. At the end of the day the title of the degree doesn't matter. Whether its Women's Studies, Math, or Seafood Prep, it's more about learning to use analytical skills to look at problems. The idea being these skills are translatable. I do like the idea of college. I do like the idea that you've spent four years thinking. I do sometimes feel college is waster on the young. If society functioned in a way such that you could work for 10 years and go back to college at age 30 I think people would derive much more value from it, even for degrees with no direct economic value.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  The idea being these skills are translatable. In that case, Math is always superior to Women's studies. Math is economically beneficial and also helps maintain a functioning democracy. Women's studies only does the latter. Following this logic, the author is incorrect that the public goods are being unbundled from the private goods.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    Well given the high numbers of math majors who go to work on finance one could argue that it's economically less beneficial. :-)
- tokenadult 15y ago
  I'm sure you know Jefferson was one of the big proponents of a well-informed citizenry in order to maintain a functioning democracy. Yes, Jefferson generally expressed the opinion that an educated citizenry is beneficial to a country, and I have often expressed agreement with that opinion. But it is important to note that Jefferson did not support making school attendance compulsory, nor did he think that education should be provided solely by state governments. Jefferson received more nonparental schooling than the other three presidents depicted on Mount Rushmore combined, first at home with a hired tutor in Tuckahoe, where Jefferson's father moved when Jefferson was two to be guardian for his wife's late cousin's son. At age nine Thomas Jefferson was placed as a boarding student in the one-room "Latin school" kept by the Reverend William Douglas, minister of St. James Parish. Thomas Jefferson's later letters reveal Jefferson didn't think Reverend Douglas really knew the subject matter very well. Thomas Jefferson's studies with that teacher ended at the age of fourteen, when his father died. Thomas Jefferson then was sent to the five-student school kept by the Reverend James Maury, whose son was one of the other students in the school. Jefferson spent many hours walking in the woods or practicing the violin while studying there. Jefferson then again stopped attending school briefly before traveling to Williamsburg to attend the College of William and Mary. William Small was Thomas Jefferson's favorite member of the college's seven-man faculty. Jefferson was remembered in later years by his classmates for his diligence in independently reading books until late at night. After two years, Jefferson completed his studies at William and Mary and then studied law by working with a Williamsburg lawyer from 1762 to 1766. Jefferson, after retiring from his rather trouble-plagued presidency, spent years planning a system of publicly subsidized schools in Virginia. He wrote extensively to other planners of that project, and many of his letters from that period survive and have been reprinted. He was convinced from his extensive observations of society in America and in Europe that parental control was vital for schools: "But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the Governor and Council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience. Try the principle one step further and amend the bill so as to commit to the Governor and Council the management of all our farms, our mills, and merchants' stores." Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, Feb. 2, 1816, reprinted in Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson (1955), page 98 and in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1904), volume 14, pages 420-21. In other words, it is as ridiculous to have governments, especially governments of broad territorial units, operate schools as it is to have governments operate grocery stores or farms. But of course socialist countries around the world have tried the experiment of governments running farms and stores, always with disastrous results, and almost every country in the world today has government-operated schools. Perhaps it is time to listen again to Jefferson's advice. Jefferson was quite consistent on this point of preferring private operation of schools, however much those schools were publicly funded and open to all members of the public. In a state of the Union address during his second term as president, Jefferson noted: "It [should not] be proposed to take ordinary branches [of education] out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." Thomas Jefferson, sixth annual message to Congress (1806), reprinted in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1907), volume 14, page 384. Jefferson most definitely supported public funding of schools, but made clear he opposed compulsory attendance. "Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? . . . It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father. What is proposed here is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis . . . Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, September 9, 1817, reprinted in Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1904) volume 17, page 423.
tzs 15y ago
A broadly educated well-informed citizenry would insure that the phrases "president Palin" and "president Bachmann" would never occur in any context other than jokes.
Spyro7 15y ago
In economics a public good is defined as a good that is both non-rivalrous and non-excludable. In other words, a public good is defined as a product or service where the following are True: - An additional consumer of the product or service does not impact the ability of others to consume - It is not possible to prevent someone from consuming the good A good example of a public good is something like national defense. A bad example of a public good is university education. University education meets neither of the criteria necessary in order to be classified as a public good. I think that what the author means to say is that there are positive externalities that are associated with the provision of public universities. While your conceptual waiter with a degree in women's studies is a dubious example of the benefits of education, there is some evidence available that suggests that the availability of education is, in the aggregate, strongly correlated with certain positive societal outcomes. This is a bit outside of my areas of study, so I am not able to suggest specific readings. However, I can point you in the general direction of a couple of Google scholar search results: - Education and Crime Reduction: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=education+and+crime http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=education+and+crime - Education and Macroeconomic Effects: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=education+and+human+capital http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=education+and+... Of course, there is also some evidence that strongly calls into question the general purpose of post-secondary education. Is post-secondary education beneficial in its own right or is post-secondary education simply another useful bullet point on a resume? Is it a signaling mechanism or is it a valuable addition to society? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics) (Yes, I know that this is wikipedia, but it is a nice article.) Edit: I clicked update too fast the first time. I nearly forgot to say. If the primary benefit of post-secondary education is that it provides a useful signal, then it stands to reason that there may be more cost-effective ways of achieving this end.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

smcj 15y ago

I found the authors mistake: "But now that students and parents are paying the majority of the cost of the education [...]" WTH? Every society which basically favours people with deep pockets instead of intelligent, gifted people (and don't let yourself be fooled by "scholarships") is heading for a huge failure. Real scientific research, political progress and prosperity of the nation will suffer from it (which is exactly what you can observe in the US).

endtime 15y ago
In a capitalist society, "people with deep pockets" is an approximation of "capable people".
- pyre 15y ago
  So capitalist societies don't have inheritance?
  - learc83 15y ago
    In the U.S %69 of billionaires earned their wealth. The percentage of millionaires who earned their wealth is even higher. It's a commonly held misconception that most of the wealthy inherit their money. Yes there are plenty of people who are capable, but not wealthy and vice versa. However, the OP didn't say "wealthy people == capable people". He said wealthy people are "...an approximation of "capable people" Btw I'm not going to bother to include sources on my claim. If you want to validate it, the sources are easy to find. I'm not going to bother proviin
  - endtime 15y ago
    First of all, I said "approximation". Second of all, genes and values are inherited as well.
    - pyre 15y ago
      Is that really the case though? There have been plenty of cases where the subsequent generations have let the wealth crumble (or at least pieces of it, like historic mansions, etc).

WWWWH 15y ago

OK, this is interesting but as best I can tell he's talking about splitting profitable from unprofitable courses. But there is another way of drawing the line between the functions of modern unis. The offer is; + undergraduate education + postgraduate education (including research degrees) + scientific and engineering research + research and scholarship in the humanities + nationally televised sports (subset of US only) + We provide accommodation + A social experience for late teens / early twenties + We set and assess exams (could split again here) + We provide accreditation (our courses are worthwhile as we say they are; this is complex, though, and depends on course, jurisdiction, much more) + We provided a branded experience ("I went to M...") Now it is unlikely that universities that offer much of this will ever split out the functions (Vince Cable suggested it in the UK and didn't get very far). What do you reckon on the chances of some nimble new entrants taking away some of this business from the incumbents? [edited to try and get the list to work]

justincormack 15y ago
Well in the UK we had a huge number of recent new entrants to the market (polytechnics, fe colleges etc), whole sets of mergers. And the number of customers increased a lot, probably past the point where the returns are positive. London has recently seen a huge new market in student accomodation. Universities are providing branded courses overseas. Only the postgrad situation is arguably stagnent in terms of innovation.

dotBen 15y ago

Did anyone else think this was something completely different? For those of us with a British education "bundling" in education means something very different... Best demonstrated via video I think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ6lsa3V5SA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ6lsa3V5SA (safe for work)