The only college degree that truly was an education

[John105]

Think I already posted here but my buddy earns a lot. He said he hopes his 3 kids don’t decide to go to college (expense), and besides it’s not needed. Said he would not have benefitted in any way, don’t I agree? As long as we’ve known one another he doesn’t know where I went to college nor that I have a masters. But I did feel I had to speak up and say I don’t agree. He said with AI why in the world would anyone need college.

I wanna say actually lots make it as far as he did (past me) in the corporate world today. But getting an education is a better bet as far as I’m concerned. Not everyone is good at BS, seriously, I’m not. Science does matter, can’t BS the construction of a cable stay bridge.

I get that BS is not taught in school either it’s a gift if that makes any sense.

This is a huge world now so I always say ymmv.

My buddy is good at BS in the corporate world. He got hired 2020 and was told 3 days a week in office. He’s been in the office 4 times in 5 years.

I can demonstrate that his lack of education does affect him just not salary wise. He once paid $60 for a haircut for his son when it was only $35. He wanted change and the barber didn’t know that and put the money in the register. He wanted $15 back. I told him how is the barber supposed to know? He said cuz I gave him 3 20’s he knew and dishonest.

He asked me if GM is buying us a new car. Why would they? No, I’m paying for the new car.

He took a business trip to NYC and didn’t want to do a report in Concur cuz he didn’t want to rock the boat. What?

He makes over $200k and only gets 2 weeks vacation.

All of the above imho reflects a lack of understanding on how life works.

Education is worthwhile. It’s not all about money but I get it money is needed too.

 

[edyvw]

How’s the job market looking for new grads ?

Bleak.
Enrollment is dramatically ticking up, which means the economy is slowing down. For colleges/universities, a recession is when people go back to school.

But, there is a bigger issue. I believe that online education is seriously harming people who choose to pursue it, especially undergraduates. They really struggle once they are out of college.
Also, we see the "COVID generation" (doing online work) coming to college, and it is an absolute disaster. I have never seen students so poorly educated. It is scary.

 

[tbm5690]

Bleak.
Enrollment is dramatically ticking up, which means the economy is slowing down. For colleges/universities, a recession is when people go back to school.

But, there is a bigger issue. I believe that online education is seriously harming people who choose to pursue it, especially undergraduates. They really struggle once they are out of college.
Also, we see the "COVID generation" (doing online work) coming to college, and it is an absolute disaster. I have never seen students so poorly educated. It is scary.

Nationally enrollment is still down compared to a decade ago, but of course for every school that dips another is growing. The biggest issue with the incoming "COVID" students, IMO, is they've never been required to put in the effort and therefore expect an A regardless of performance. They've never been told "no" and think that they are entitled to an exception for any deadline or requirement.

 

[edyvw]

Nationally enrollment is still down compared to a decade ago, but of course for every school that dips another is growing. The biggest issue with the incoming "COVID" students, IMO, is they've never been required to put in the effort and therefore expect an A regardless of performance. They've never been told "no" and think that they are entitled to an exception for any deadline or requirement.

It is, bcs. we are experiencing a "demographic cliff." Meaning, we are entering a period where we have lower high school graduation rates bcs. we had a lower birthrate 18 years ago.
Also, there is a lot of talk about whether college is worth the money. The problem is that states dramatically cut education budgets during 2007/08 recession, and they never recovered. Money has to come from somewhere, so tuition went up. If states invested in colleges like they did 20yrs ago, it would be much cheaper.
On COVID students, yes.

 

[tbm5690]

The problem is that states dramatically cut education budgets during 2007/08 recession, and they never recovered.

That's a generalization that isn't supported by statistics on state spending in the last few years. Over-all, very large increases in funding. Again, not all states of course. But on a macro level funding keeps going up.

 

[Dave Hess]

Kids realizing irrelevant trash degrees are a waste of money also hurting enrollment.

 

[tbm5690]

Kids realizing irrelevant trash degrees are a waste of money also hurting enrollment.

Which is good. I would like to see STEM enrollment grow and "The Arts" shrink. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy some of those classes for electives but as a major? Nope.

 

[ripcord]

It is, bcs. we are experiencing a "demographic cliff." Meaning, we are entering a period where we have lower high school graduation rates bcs. we had a lower birthrate 18 years ago.
Also, there is a lot of talk about whether college is worth the money. The problem is that states dramatically cut education budgets during 2007/08 recession, and they never recovered. Money has to come from somewhere, so tuition went up. If states invested in colleges like they did 20yrs ago, it would be much cheaper.
On COVID students, yes.

Tuition rates will fall and colleges will be forced to implement austerity measures due to several factors. One is greater competition for a shrinking pool of students due to demographics. Another is the increasing quality of alternate degree sources and more students opting for focused job training en leu of 4 year programs. Third, we will see reforms in federal student aid that will curtail money for (excuse my highly technical jargon) whackadoodle degree programs which have low earning potential.

When supply exceeds demand and cheaper alternative products enter the market (like AI driven solutions), prices must fall. The colleges that can't cut costs will go under as has already been happening lately at an accelerated rate. About 80 closures this year is the prediction by the federal reserve.

 

[Dave Hess]

Kids realizing irrelevant trash degrees are a waste of money also hurting enrollment.

$90,000 of student debt and working at Chick Fil A , Starbucks, Chipotle or Build A Bear workshop….

 

[GON]

Tuition rates will fall and colleges will be forced to implement austerity measures due to several factors. One is greater competition for a shrinking pool of students for to demographics. Another is the increasing quality of alternate degree sources and more students opting for focused job training en leu of 4 year programs. Third, we will see reforms in federal student aid that will curtail money for (excuse my highly technical jargon) whackadoodle degree programs which have low earning potential.

When supply exceeds demand and cheaper alternative products enter the market (like AI driven solutions), prices must fall. The colleges that can't cut costs will go under as has already been happening lately at an accelerated rate. About 80 closures this year is the prediction by the federal reserve.

I posted a reference to Wheaton College in this thread. Two decades ago, a very challenging institution to gain admittance. Wheaton College today is working numerous recruiting campaigns, something Wheaton never has done in prior decades. A sign that times have changed.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

That's a generalization that isn't supported by statistics on state spending in the last few years. Over-all, very large increases in funding. Again, not all states of course. But on a macro level funding keeps going up.

You'll like this.

https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper...ing-tuition-revenue-public-colleges-1980-2023

 

[ecotourist]

Thirty years ago a neighbour decided that getting an education was a waste of time and money. An article in the farm weekly newspaper said that kids with a grade 12 education were doing as well as college grads. so he decided that his kids were not getting a post secondary education.

So where did his kids end up? They did okay enough but have dead end jobs.

Where did my kid end up - a big job at a Crown Corporation. So yes an education made a difference.

I had a very successful career that I attribute to a fine education. I'm not sure where I'd have ended up without it. Would I have been the guy who took an entry level job and after 20 or 30 years became the CEO of a large corporation, making mega bucks, and still been both humane and sane? Them's long odds son, long odds.

 

[GON]

Thirty years ago a neighbour decided that getting an education was a waste of time and money. An article in the farm weekly newspaper said that kids with a grade 12 education were doing as well as college grads. so he decided that his kids were not getting a post secondary education.

So where did his kids end up? They did okay enough but have dead end jobs.

Where did my kid end up - a big job at a Crown Corporation. So yes an education made a difference.

I had a very successful career that I attribute to a fine education. I'm not sure where I'd have ended up without it. Would I have been the guy who took an entry level job and after 20 or 30 years became the CEO of a large corporation, making mega bucks, and still been both humane and sane? Them's long odds son, long odds.

The center of gravity for the thread implied college is a very worthwhile endeavor, as long as the education is a STEM degree. Today's graduates with non stem degrees are rolling the dice in today's world.

One likely can get a better education on YouTube than at many top 100 institutions when learning different non stem fields such as business administration.

Graduating a four year institution in four years is a significant achievement, regardless of stem or non stem. The issue is non stem degrees are often weaker in what is actually learned than a motivated person self educating themselves.

 

[ripcord]

One of the thing that is a massive driver of cost at universities is the idea that every professor in every irrelevant program in every college has to be involved in cutting edge research. Colleges are bloated with staff beyond belief because nobody wants to teach and everyone wants to be the next Freud, Gramsci, or Marx, and the vast majority of professors are wasting billions on stupid so called research.

 

[edyvw]

Tuition rates will fall and colleges will be forced to implement austerity measures due to several factors. One is greater competition for a shrinking pool of students due to demographics. Another is the increasing quality of alternate degree sources and more students opting for focused job training en leu of 4 year programs. Third, we will see reforms in federal student aid that will curtail money for (excuse my highly technical jargon) whackadoodle degree programs which have low earning potential.

When supply exceeds demand and cheaper alternative products enter the market (like AI driven solutions), prices must fall. The colleges that can't cut costs will go under as has already been happening lately at an accelerated rate. About 80 closures this year is the prediction by the federal reserve.

Man, austerity measures in higher education are going on for more then a decade. When people say: colleges need to tighten the belt, I know they have no idea about what is happening.
I am talking here your average state college.

As for training programs, I will say two things:
1. They have right to choose. But at their detriment.
2. We don’t see uptick in trade schools, especially among male population!

There is a lot of talk about alternatives, but there is no follow through.

 

[edyvw]

That's a generalization that isn't supported by statistics on state spending in the last few years. Over-all, very large increases in funding. Again, not all states of course. But on a macro level funding keeps going up.

You are not taking into consideration inflation. The cost of doing business is increased.

 

[ripcord]

Man, austerity measures in higher education are going on for more then a decade. When people say: colleges need to tighten the belt, I know they have no idea about what is happening.
I am talking here your average state college.

As for training programs, I will say two things:
1. They have right to choose. But at their detriment.
2. We don’t see uptick in trade schools, especially among male population!

There is a lot of talk about alternatives, but there is no follow through.

There's austerity and then there's austerity. When public universities have close to a one to one ratio of students to full time employees, that's not austerity. For example, I picked the University of California system as it's the first one that came to mind. It has 295,000 students and 265,000 faculty according to their about page on their website. To me austerity starts when all professors have to personally teach at least a couple of classes per quarter.

 

[ecotourist]

One of the thing that is a massive driver of cost at universities is the idea that every professor in every irrelevant program in every college has to be involved in cutting edge research. Colleges are bloated with staff beyond belief because nobody wants to teach and everyone wants to be the next Freud, Gramsci, or Marx, and the vast majority of professors are wasting billions on stupid so called research.

What you say is mostly true but I think there is some logic to it. In order to truly stay up to date (especially in a rapidly changing area) you have to be really involved in your field. Not passively observing, really involved.

Everyone knows that most of the research being conducted is not going to result in anything very great. But meanwhile that researcher/professor has advanced their knowledge and been able to teach at a completely different level.

It used to be said that most physician's practice is appropriate for their year of graduation from med school. How would you like those physicians teaching today's med students? Better that the faculty should be heavily involved in research relevant to their area of specialty (and no doubt for most, wasting some time).

There is a limit to this logic however. In my opinion, all faculty should be providing service and teaching. There are very few areas where an appropriate faculty to student ratio would be 1:1.

 

[edyvw]

There's austerity and then there's austerity. When public universities have close to a one to one ratio of students to full time employees, that's not austerity. For example, I picked the University of California system as it's the first one that came to mind. It has 295,000 students and 265,000 faculty according to their about page on their website. To me austerity starts when all professors have to personally teach at least a couple of classes per quarter.

OK, I know some people in that system as well as CSU.
Universities produce new knowledge. When you talk about the US as a superpower, you talk about innovation, new knowledge not the number of nuclear warheads (for example, Russia has more) etc. UC system is the largest state university system in the US, according to some; according to others, it is California State, so it is at least second. But research wise, it is by far the most productive. You have numerous professors who do not teach at all! Why? Because they buy out their classes. When UC system employs professors, the schedule is 2 classes per semester; SOME very heavy research departments are 1 class per semester (however, research expectations are extremely high). What do some professors do? They get grants and then buy a class from the university so they can research. Basically, they pay back the university so that they do not have to teach. But you have to get a grant to have money. Some people are really good at that (check how many Nobel laureates in chemistry, physics, and medicine UC system has) and those grants support staff. A professor cannot conduct research without staff support bcs. grants, ESPECIALLY federal grants, require a ton of paperwork, checks, audits, etc. It is easier to get parole for murder than to get vetted for an NSF grant. So, when one receives a grant, there are two types of costs: direct and indirect costs. Universities take a portion of those grants and fund staff, scholarships for students who don't have money, electricity, cleaning, water, sewage etc.
So, a professor who buys out classes for several years bcs. he/she works on Webb telescope etc. might be actually funding 10-20 scholarships, staff etc. Also, a lot of researchers are really, really bad teachers. Their heart is in research. Then you have professors who are really good teachers and OK researchers. They typically teach 2 to 3 classes per semester at the UC system and often carry summer semesters on their backs, teaching 2-3 classes (for additional pay).

My point is, you really don't want to make really good researchers to teach, if they don't want to. But their contract involves teaching. If they don't teach, that means they bought out those classes, employ research assistants, provide money for scholarships, support staff etc.

 

[edyvw]

What you say is mostly true but I think there is some logic to it. In order to truly stay up to date (especially in a rapidly changing area) you have to be really involved in your field. Not passively observing, really involved.

Everyone knows that most of the research being conducted is not going to result in anything very great. But meanwhile that researcher/professor has advanced their knowledge and been able to teach at a completely different level.

It used to be said that most physician's practice is appropriate for their year of graduation from med school. How would you like those physicians teaching today's med students? Better that the faculty should be heavily involved in research relevant to their area of specialty (and no doubt for most, wasting some time).

There is a limit to this logic however. In my opinion, all faculty should be providing service and teaching. There are very few areas where an appropriate faculty to student ratio would be 1:1.

They do. In most research universities, the schedule is: 40% research, 40% teaching and 20% service. There is a joke that the schedule is 40/40/40 because there is always a ton of service.
However, as I mentioned, professors can buy out teaching with grants. You really don't want to limit those people if they can get grants bcs. that means they are good in what they do and very productive.