7 ms·

This blog post seems like a jumble of ideas that are neither consistent or connected. It starts with colleges should be more than job training centers, then en

This blog post seems like a jumble of ideas that are neither consistent or connected. It starts with colleges should be more than job training centers, then ends with trying to create an accreditation process to prove value to external entities (of which I assume employers are a big part?). It mentions the high cost of education, then describes how his current options are lacking because the number of classes in each major is limited. He talks about how administrators are unnecessary, then suggests a similarly labor intensive accreditation system that requires experts, committees and other logistics that requires significant manpower and time/energy. There are many flaws with the educational system, of which convenience, rigor, equality, and cost are a few the OP mentions, however his solution doesn't seem to solve many of the challenges he mentions. I doubt that accreditation is a major cost to running a university - there are simply many other market forces (wanting facilities, a good football team, strong researchers that might not put teaching first) that causes the cost/benefit relationship to be the status quo. He finds it unconscionable that adjunct faculty don't make enough money, then hopes to solve it with a free market - where honestly the things he values might not be the things many others value. He wants rigor - then critiques current accreditation processes that largely does what he suggests. Each of the major MOOCs already are trying to accredite/build reputation/be rigorous. What OP is essentially doing is describing the idea of Udacity, Coursera, etc without the technical backend, the users to attract such a marketplace, connections, support, or actually being able to do a MOOC.

MayanAstronaut 12y ago
Agreed, it is almost as if he needs a BA in English Lit
ChuckMcM 12y ago
Considering that it is their first degree, I made the possible inaccurate assumption that this person was just getting out of the US equivalent of high school. My thoughts at that age were pretty jumbled too. Many of my peers didn't really have any idea why they were in college until maybe their third year. It wasn't until they had the benefit of having gone through such a program and looked back on it to appreciate what it was that it was and how it affected them. My sister asked once why I considered college graduation a 'big deal' and not high school graduation. My response is that graduating from college is the first thing you can do where it's reasonably hard, takes a multi-year effort, and is completely optional. It is, for me, a signal that someone has decided to pursue something through to the end, and to do so with the full knowledge that not doing so is also a valid path. It is, for me, the kinds of things that adults do, and kids don't do.
- broodbucket 12y ago
  High school graduation is a rite of passage, university is not, that's the difference.
  - matwood 12y ago
    Really? I was just happy it was done and I could go do something interesting and be treated like an adult. I still speak to exactly 1 person I knew from HS. For me, HS is already a mostly forgotten blip in my life. Undergrad and then graduate school were a much bigger deal because it was up to me to complete them. I didn't have teachers or my parents or anything else making me finish, it was something I did on my own. They were also both interesting and challenging.
- kalms 12y ago
  I really like that point of view. Don't have a college degree, but it still resonates.
- prof_hobart 12y ago
  >My response is that graduating from college is the first thing you can do where it's reasonably hard, takes a multi-year effort, and is completely optional That's not entirely true - taking a job also falls into that category. Not saying that college isn't a valid choice, but 3 years of work at the same point can be an equally valid choice.
  - bane 12y ago
    Not nearly as valid. Generally, people have to have a job in order to survive.
    - gobots 12y ago
      I worked to teach myself how to program. Started at the age of 9, pursued it off and on until I was 21 then went hard at it. I dropped out of community college because I had to work – so you're correct, working is something you must do to make money sometimes. But I had other options available to me. The easiest path I could have taken was to continue working construction for my father or paint houses with my cousin. These were neither fulfilling lines of work nor would they allow me to accomplish the life I wanted. I was forced to drop out of college due to lack of money, but I would hardly consider what I have done to be less of an accomplishment. Over the last decade I have learned PHP, Perl, Javascript, Node, Python, CSS, HTML, various databases and now I am trying to transition into video game design and development which is what my plan has been for the last 15 years. I disagree that college is the highest form of validation one can receive. Edit: Grammer, spelling and this: forgot to mention that I have worked for several well known companies in a major US city now, one of them for 2.5 years, another for 5. I have also maintained a steady stream of side projects and clients.
nmrm 12y ago
You make some good points, but many of your objections are shallow. > It starts with colleges should be more than job training centers, then ends with trying to create an accreditation process to prove value to external entities (of which I assume employers are a big part?). It is absolutely consistent to realize that a degree is not about job training, but should probably produce employable graduates. Ensuring the quality of the program is important for both. Many universities/colleges are "not about job training", but all of them are accredited. I think the point is to ensure quality rather than demonstrate value; the main reason he identifies for not attending the smaller public schools in his area is quality. Similarly for existing online schools, which definitely are about job training. > It mentions the high cost of education, then describes how his current options are lacking because the number of classes in each major is limited. I don't think this is inconsistent (which seems to be what you're implying), but agree that the author probably has a poor understanding of how such things work. See threads below. > He talks about how administrators are unnecessary, then suggests a similarly labor intensive accreditation system that requires experts, committees and other logistics that requires significant manpower and time/energy. Well, you actually answer this below. Lots of those "administrative" costs are not about necessary things like accreditation and instruction (sports, fancy facilities, libraries, etc.). Some of these (e.g. libraries) are necessary (for serious students). However, this approach could externalize many such costs. Most public universities open these facilities -- esp. their libraries -- to the public (sometimes for a small fee). That doesn't make the cost problem for the sector go away, but it does provide an affordable education for those who cannot afford the mainstream option. > however his solution doesn't seem to solve many of the challenges he mentions. I don't think this is intended as a complete solution. I think it's intended to solve one specific problem standing in the way of a whole variety of solutions (that is, quality assurance and associated reputation). > He finds it unconscionable that adjunct faculty don't make enough money, then hopes to solve it with a free market - where honestly the things he values might not be the things many others value. This is a fair and important criticism. I think the author of the post should think deeply. I imagine there are two answers. First, his approach seems to genuinely value rigor. This can go a long way toward resolving negative perceptions (one major road-block for these sorts of approaches). Second, there might be enough similar people that this sort of project could become feasible. > He wants rigor - then critiques current accreditation processes that largely does what he suggests. I didn't see any critique of the current accreditation process. It's fair to ask why he isn't using one of those. I assume there are two reasons. First, many probably have a strong bias toward brick and mortar institutions. Second, I am sure many are "rubber stamp" committees (e.g. consider the dubious curricula of various "accredited!" online CS degree programs). > Each of the major MOOCs already are trying to accredite/build reputation/be rigorous. What OP is essentially doing is describing the idea of Udacity, Coursera, etc without the technical backend, the users to attract such a marketplace, connections, support, or actually being able to do a MOOC. Well, no. His model is actually very different. The M in the MOOC model is important. Star lecturers, hundreds of students, several TAs and little or no cost to the student has been the model thus far. There are many reasons this model probably doesn't scale to an entire degree program. Quality of assessment is one reason. His model seems to call for something more intimate and more hands-on, with the instructor paid exclusively through student tuition. This seems both more sustainable and more likely to produce quality students (imho). edit: cleaned up some grammar. But this is still an internet comment post, so thanks for putting up with my slopping writing!
jalanb 12y ago
> there are simply many other market forces (... a good football team ...) Not being an American, may I just take a slight space to admit that Mind == Blown
- mhb 12y ago
  So this is your first encounter with the pretty crazy association between education and sports in the US?
senand 12y ago
I'm diverging from the topic, but isn't it terrible that "a good football team" is a major cost to running a university (in the US)?
- ecocentrik 12y ago
  It's my understanding that a "good" college football team generates considerable sums of money for a univerity. You're probably thinking about the cost of starting a football program or maintaining an unsuccessful football team.
  - JackFr 12y ago
    A great college football team makes money, but does require a substantial capital investment. Typically the only private institutions you will find in the AP Top 25 are Stanford and Notre Dame. The bulk of schools outside the Top 25 lose money on their football teams. Before we weep over that however, they lose money on all of their sports teams, their student newspapers and student theater productions and a flagship state university, the non-student state residents often do consider a quality football program through the auspices of the university a benefit they are willing to pay for.
    - zanny 12y ago
      > do consider a quality football program through the auspices of the university a benefit they are willing to pay for. Then it wouldn't be an operational loss, if the attracted number of students paying for the school with a football team offsets the costs of running the team after any direct proceeds.
  - Amezarak 12y ago
    The last I read, only the top ten or so teams turned a profit. I am somewhat embittered though, as during my time at university, my tuition went up by $500 for the explicit purpose of funding the football team. And I was paying cash.
    - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

MayanAstronaut 12y ago

Agreed, it is almost as if he needs a BA in English Lit

ChuckMcM 12y ago

Considering that it is their first degree, I made the possible inaccurate assumption that this person was just getting out of the US equivalent of high school. My thoughts at that age were pretty jumbled too. Many of my peers didn't really have any idea why they were in college until maybe their third year. It wasn't until they had the benefit of having gone through such a program and looked back on it to appreciate what it was that it was and how it affected them. My sister asked once why I considered college graduation a 'big deal' and not high school graduation. My response is that graduating from college is the first thing you can do where it's reasonably hard, takes a multi-year effort, and is completely optional. It is, for me, a signal that someone has decided to pursue something through to the end, and to do so with the full knowledge that not doing so is also a valid path. It is, for me, the kinds of things that adults do, and kids don't do.

broodbucket 12y ago
High school graduation is a rite of passage, university is not, that's the difference.
- matwood 12y ago
  Really? I was just happy it was done and I could go do something interesting and be treated like an adult. I still speak to exactly 1 person I knew from HS. For me, HS is already a mostly forgotten blip in my life. Undergrad and then graduate school were a much bigger deal because it was up to me to complete them. I didn't have teachers or my parents or anything else making me finish, it was something I did on my own. They were also both interesting and challenging.
kalms 12y ago
I really like that point of view. Don't have a college degree, but it still resonates.
prof_hobart 12y ago
>My response is that graduating from college is the first thing you can do where it's reasonably hard, takes a multi-year effort, and is completely optional That's not entirely true - taking a job also falls into that category. Not saying that college isn't a valid choice, but 3 years of work at the same point can be an equally valid choice.
- bane 12y ago
  Not nearly as valid. Generally, people have to have a job in order to survive.
  - gobots 12y ago
    I worked to teach myself how to program. Started at the age of 9, pursued it off and on until I was 21 then went hard at it. I dropped out of community college because I had to work – so you're correct, working is something you must do to make money sometimes. But I had other options available to me. The easiest path I could have taken was to continue working construction for my father or paint houses with my cousin. These were neither fulfilling lines of work nor would they allow me to accomplish the life I wanted. I was forced to drop out of college due to lack of money, but I would hardly consider what I have done to be less of an accomplishment. Over the last decade I have learned PHP, Perl, Javascript, Node, Python, CSS, HTML, various databases and now I am trying to transition into video game design and development which is what my plan has been for the last 15 years. I disagree that college is the highest form of validation one can receive. Edit: Grammer, spelling and this: forgot to mention that I have worked for several well known companies in a major US city now, one of them for 2.5 years, another for 5. I have also maintained a steady stream of side projects and clients.

nmrm 12y ago

You make some good points, but many of your objections are shallow. > It starts with colleges should be more than job training centers, then ends with trying to create an accreditation process to prove value to external entities (of which I assume employers are a big part?). It is absolutely consistent to realize that a degree is not about job training, but should probably produce employable graduates. Ensuring the quality of the program is important for both. Many universities/colleges are "not about job training", but all of them are accredited. I think the point is to ensure quality rather than demonstrate value; the main reason he identifies for not attending the smaller public schools in his area is quality. Similarly for existing online schools, which definitely are about job training. > It mentions the high cost of education, then describes how his current options are lacking because the number of classes in each major is limited. I don't think this is inconsistent (which seems to be what you're implying), but agree that the author probably has a poor understanding of how such things work. See threads below. > He talks about how administrators are unnecessary, then suggests a similarly labor intensive accreditation system that requires experts, committees and other logistics that requires significant manpower and time/energy. Well, you actually answer this below. Lots of those "administrative" costs are not about necessary things like accreditation and instruction (sports, fancy facilities, libraries, etc.). Some of these (e.g. libraries) are necessary (for serious students). However, this approach could externalize many such costs. Most public universities open these facilities -- esp. their libraries -- to the public (sometimes for a small fee). That doesn't make the cost problem for the sector go away, but it does provide an affordable education for those who cannot afford the mainstream option. > however his solution doesn't seem to solve many of the challenges he mentions. I don't think this is intended as a complete solution. I think it's intended to solve one specific problem standing in the way of a whole variety of solutions (that is, quality assurance and associated reputation). > He finds it unconscionable that adjunct faculty don't make enough money, then hopes to solve it with a free market - where honestly the things he values might not be the things many others value. This is a fair and important criticism. I think the author of the post should think deeply. I imagine there are two answers. First, his approach seems to genuinely value rigor. This can go a long way toward resolving negative perceptions (one major road-block for these sorts of approaches). Second, there might be enough similar people that this sort of project could become feasible. > He wants rigor - then critiques current accreditation processes that largely does what he suggests. I didn't see any critique of the current accreditation process. It's fair to ask why he isn't using one of those. I assume there are two reasons. First, many probably have a strong bias toward brick and mortar institutions. Second, I am sure many are "rubber stamp" committees (e.g. consider the dubious curricula of various "accredited!" online CS degree programs). > Each of the major MOOCs already are trying to accredite/build reputation/be rigorous. What OP is essentially doing is describing the idea of Udacity, Coursera, etc without the technical backend, the users to attract such a marketplace, connections, support, or actually being able to do a MOOC. Well, no. His model is actually very different. The M in the MOOC model is important. Star lecturers, hundreds of students, several TAs and little or no cost to the student has been the model thus far. There are many reasons this model probably doesn't scale to an entire degree program. Quality of assessment is one reason. His model seems to call for something more intimate and more hands-on, with the instructor paid exclusively through student tuition. This seems both more sustainable and more likely to produce quality students (imho). edit: cleaned up some grammar. But this is still an internet comment post, so thanks for putting up with my slopping writing!

jalanb 12y ago

> there are simply many other market forces (... a good football team ...) Not being an American, may I just take a slight space to admit that Mind == Blown

mhb 12y ago
So this is your first encounter with the pretty crazy association between education and sports in the US?

senand 12y ago

I'm diverging from the topic, but isn't it terrible that "a good football team" is a major cost to running a university (in the US)?

ecocentrik 12y ago
It's my understanding that a "good" college football team generates considerable sums of money for a univerity. You're probably thinking about the cost of starting a football program or maintaining an unsuccessful football team.
- JackFr 12y ago
  A great college football team makes money, but does require a substantial capital investment. Typically the only private institutions you will find in the AP Top 25 are Stanford and Notre Dame. The bulk of schools outside the Top 25 lose money on their football teams. Before we weep over that however, they lose money on all of their sports teams, their student newspapers and student theater productions and a flagship state university, the non-student state residents often do consider a quality football program through the auspices of the university a benefit they are willing to pay for.
  - zanny 12y ago
    > do consider a quality football program through the auspices of the university a benefit they are willing to pay for. Then it wouldn't be an operational loss, if the attracted number of students paying for the school with a football team offsets the costs of running the team after any direct proceeds.
- Amezarak 12y ago
  The last I read, only the top ten or so teams turned a profit. I am somewhat embittered though, as during my time at university, my tuition went up by $500 for the explicit purpose of funding the football team. And I was paying cash.
  - 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]