Enough with college already

[Technocratic]

The solution is not to cut subsidies. It's just that you are doing it wrong, because many other countries have much cheaper state universities that are fully, or largely, subsidized by the government. THeir universities are not absurdly expensive like American ones.

As usual, the American system is full of fail.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I disagree. I think higher education is an important factor in social mobility. Yes, you can make a lot of money without going to college, but on average a college degree will improve your long-term financial situation. No, it's not necessary, but then again highways aren't necessary either.

Things need to change, but I don't think just cutting education is the answer.

High school was supposed to do all those things but since most people get some level of high school education, businesses are requiring an even higher but unnecessary level of education to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Eventually, we'll need an even higher level of education to separate the college graduates from others because of the giant influx and general dumbing down of college education.

 

[OscarB63]

I went to grad school with many "foreign" students. One thing they all had in common and an advantage they had over me...in undergrad they took courses related only to their degree. chemistry majors took chemistry, math and physics. While I was forced to waste my time and money taking english lit, history, psychology, music appreciation and all that other "general ed" crappola. Forcing students to take bull**** classes in order to keep liberal jughead professors employed is one of the main problems with our higher ed institutions.

 

[Ockham]

Im pretty sure the original OP isnt against college. Its been proven that college isnt for everyone, the argument is against government subisdies for them. Its one of the reasons why college is expensive.

That I'd agree with - but I think there's a valid argument where some degree programs are concerned - that a degree in such a program has little application except in very narrow sections of life. But then again, once we start ascribing worth based on such a judgement, it starts to infringe on freedoms - so high level degrees in Harry Potter theology is just fine.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I went to grad school with many "foreign" students. One thing they all had in common and an advantage they had over me...in undergrad they took courses related only to their degree. chemistry majors took chemistry, math and physics. While I was forced to waste my time and money taking english lit, history, psychology, music appreciation and all that other "general ed" crappola. Forcing students to take bull**** classes in order to keep liberal jughead professors employed is one of the main problems with our higher ed institutions.

I couldn't agree more. Computer Science still requires you to go all the way through mathematics and come out the other side, but after 10 years on the job I've used maybe 1% of the math I learned in college. You don't need Calc 3 to write code in the real world unless you're designing a 3D engine.

 

[OscarB63]

I couldn't agree more. Computer Science still requires you to go all the way through mathematics and come out the other side, but after 10 years on the job I've used maybe 1% of the math I learned in college. You don't need Calc 3 to write code in the real world unless you're designing a 3D engine.

same here, I had to take 4 semesters of calculus, DE and linear algebra and I have never once in over 20 years had to integrate a 3rd order differential equation in polar coordinates. the ability to distinguish Bach from Brahms has never been the deciding factor in my getting a job either.

 

[Ahlevah]

Subsidies keep tuition down.

I think it depends. If a state subsidizes tuition to a public college, then the subsidy will keep the tuition rate down. What it will do, though, is shift resources from others areas of the state's budget to the university or college. Personally, I wish my state of Mississippi would spend more money funding technical training at the community college level in the aerospace and automotive industries instead of on things like the law school at Ole Miss. If someone wants to become a lawyer let him pay for it. It's not like these lawyers give citizens a break on fees because they got a bargain-priced education. What we need are fewer lawsuits and more jobs to complement the ones provided by companies like Northrop Grumman, Rolls-Royce, Boeing, Nissan, Toyota, American Eurocopter, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Pratt & Whitney. In order to do that, we need a well-qualified technical labor force, and community colleges are, I think, up to the task--if they can get the money.

When it comes to private colleges, I don't think subsidies keep tuition down at all. Tuition is one of those things that's outpaced the rate of inflation, and it seems as though the more the government provides loans, grants, and tax credits to kids to attend college the more schools raise it. (I realize many schools provide their own primarily need-based financial aid as well.) At top-tier schools, people will pay whatever the market will bear, and the schools know it. The question is whether it's an efficient use of public resources in the form of grants, loans, and tax credits so people can attend Harvard, MIT, and Yale when they have applicants up the wazoo already. I don't think it is.

 

[1069]

I'm glad people can go to college if they want to.
I personally never saw the point, but a lot of people really seem to benefit from it.

 

[MaggieD]

When it comes to private colleges, I don't think subsidies keep tuition down at all. Tuition is one of those things that's outpaced the rate of inflation, and it seems as though the more the government provides loans, grants, and tax credits to kids to attend these colleges the more they raise it. (I realize many schools provide their own primarily need-based financial aid as well.) At top-tier schools, people will pay whatever the market will bear, and the schools know it. The question is whether it's an efficient use of public resources in the form of grants, loans, and tax credits so people can attend Harvard, MIT, and Yale when they have applicants up the wazoo already. I don't think it is.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[drz-400]

same here, I had to take 4 semesters of calculus, DE and linear algebra and I have never once in over 20 years had to integrate a 3rd order differential equation in polar coordinates. the ability to distinguish Bach from Brahms has never been the deciding factor in my getting a job either.

The whole point of math (especially like that) is not that you will ever have to solve another problem exactly like the one you learned about, it is to prove to you that it works so you can use math to solve all sorts of other problems. Contrary to popular belief the theory behind math is much more important than learning how to solve a specific problem as a procedure.

 

[Ahlevah]

As usual, the American system is full of fail.

Well, if it's full of fail, then why are foreign students coming here by the hundreds of thousands while their families pay full tuition to attend American colleges and universities:

Last year alone, 98,510 Chinese graduate and undergraduate students poured into U.S. colleges and universities, lured by China's emphasis on academic achievement and the prestige of U.S. higher education.

Chinese college students flocking to U.S. campuses - USATODAY.com

 

[drz-400]

Well, if it's full of fail, then why are foreign students coming here by the hundreds of thousands while their families pay full tuition to attend American colleges and universities:

There is no doubt in my mind that the US has some of the best college universities on the planet. There is your reason for the high cost.

And seriously, if anyone think college degrees are getting dumbed down in general I think you are completely wrong. I really doubt that on a college campus they were studying the same things 20 years ago as they are now. I understand college isn't for everybody, but it is not because they will not give you a great education (provided you give the effort).

 

[washunut]

I think it depends. If a state subsidizes tuition to a public college, then the subsidy will keep the tuition rate down. What it will do, though, is shift resources from others areas of the state's budget to the university or college. Personally, I wish my state of Mississippi would spend more money funding technical training at the community college level in the aerospace and automotive industries instead of on things like the law school at Ole Miss. If someone wants to become a lawyer let him pay for it. It's not like these lawyers give citizens a break on fees because they got a bargain-priced education. What we need are fewer lawsuits and more jobs to complement the ones provided by companies like Northrop Grumman, Rolls-Royce, Boeing, Nissan, Toyota, American Eurocopter, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Pratt & Whitney. In order to do that, we need a well-qualified technical labor force, and community colleges are, I think, up to the task--if they can get the money.

When it comes to private colleges, I don't think subsidies keep tuition down at all. Tuition is one of those things that's outpaced the rate of inflation, and it seems as though the more the government provides loans, grants, and tax credits to kids to attend college the more schools raise it. (I realize many schools provide their own primarily need-based financial aid as well.) At top-tier schools, people will pay whatever the market will bear, and the schools know it. The question is whether it's an efficient use of public resources in the form of grants, loans, and tax credits so people can attend Harvard, MIT, and Yale when they have applicants up the wazoo already. I don't think it is.

Having grants etc for people to go to Harvard or MIT is exactly what we should be doing. The best students we have should not be limited to a lesser school because of a lack of funds. I do think that grants to go to some do nothing school like you mentioned earlier is a waste of our money and in many instances the student's time.

 

[Ahlevah]

Having grants etc for people to go to Harvard or MIT is exactly what we should be doing. The best students we have should not be limited to a lesser school because of a lack of funds.

Yeah, I basically agree, but if top-tier schools keep moving the target as the subsidies roll in, then what good are those subsidies? The kids who are truly needy seem to be able to get financial aid, while the rich ones don't need it. The kids getting pinched are the ones in the middle who end up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt at graduation because their parents made too much to qualify for financial aid beyond loans. Besides, the Harvards and Yales have no problem attracting more than enough bright students to fill the available slots. If they want to remain on top, they NEED the brightest and most motivated students, regardless of their socioeconomic background. Ultimately, the success of these schools will depend on the success of their students. I'm sure if the government subsidies ended they'd dig into their scholarship and endowment pockets to find a way to get the best kids through the door.

 

[reefedjib]

I went to grad school with many "foreign" students. One thing they all had in common and an advantage they had over me...in undergrad they took courses related only to their degree. chemistry majors took chemistry, math and physics. While I was forced to waste my time and money taking english lit, history, psychology, music appreciation and all that other "general ed" crappola. Forcing students to take bull**** classes in order to keep liberal jughead professors employed is one of the main problems with our higher ed institutions.

I couldn't agree more. Computer Science still requires you to go all the way through mathematics and come out the other side, but after 10 years on the job I've used maybe 1% of the math I learned in college. You don't need Calc 3 to write code in the real world unless you're designing a 3D engine.

same here, I had to take 4 semesters of calculus, DE and linear algebra and I have never once in over 20 years had to integrate a 3rd order differential equation in polar coordinates. the ability to distinguish Bach from Brahms has never been the deciding factor in my getting a job either.

I disagree with you guys. At the undergraduate level, a liberal arts education means you take a broad variety of courses combined with the deep specialization in your field of study. The combination is what makes an undergraduate education valuable. Not in the sense that you will actually use this stuff on the job, but that you have trained yourself in critical thinking and analysis resting on that broad base of courses: double English, math, history, psychology, philosophy, science, economics, whatever. It is so you are broadly educated. In my opinion, the value of an undergrad education is for more than just your career or occupation. It is the friends you make and the interests you pursue that make you a well-rounded individual. But with respect to your occupation, critical thinking helps you be adept at solving unrelated problems.

Other countries tend to separate kids by ability early (6th grade in Germany I believe). After high school, a college bound student in another country have taken their broad based courses - in their undergrad you focus on your major. In 3 years you get your Masters and in 5 you get your PhD. Here we require 4 year undergrad, 2 additional year for Masters and 3-4 on top of that for PhD. It is simply a different educational model. If we were to separate kids early by ability, and have a vocational high school for the average kids, and a magnet only school for the talent, we could get away with dropping general classes from undergrad. It would totally change our education model and our PhDs would not be as educated as they are today.

When I went to Grad School (MS in CompSci - UNC-Charlotte) 80% of the students were foreigners. It was about 50/50 between Chinese and Indian students. Many of them had PhDs already from their home countries. The knew their ****, but they couldn't speak English or talk about anything other than CompSci for the most part. They are narrow individuals.

So, I don't think we should change a thing. I value the liberal arts education I got in undergrad. I value my grad degree for it's specialization. BTW, I have occasionally used some of the math I learned but most falls under the "critical thinking" heading. It was still worthwhile.

 

[Ahlevah]

In my opinion, the value of an undergrad education is for more than just your career or occupation. It is the friends you make and the interests you pursue that make you a well-rounded individual.

I'll add one more thing. As a society, we need citizens who are well-versed in an understanding of seemingly non-utilitarian subjects like history, philosophy, and politics. If we place these fields only in the hands of a small, politically-connected intelligentsia, then we risk having the masses become the sheep led to slaughter as their freedoms are eroded under their noses. Almost to a man, the American Founders were broadly educated. It was their study of Classical and Enlightenment political philosophy that gave them the moral argument to cause a largely reticent Protestant populace, raised in the tradition that a king ruled with divine right, to commit treason and revolt.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

I'll add one more thing. As a society, we need citizens who are well-versed in an understanding of seemingly non-utilitarian subjects like history, philosophy, and politics. If we place these fields only in the hands of a small, politically-connected intelligentsia, then we risk having the masses become the sheep led to slaughter as their freedoms are eroded under their noses. Almost to a man, the American Founders were broadly educated. It was their study of Classical and Enlightenment political philosophy that gave them the moral argument to cause a largely reticent Protestant populace, raised in the tradition that a king ruled with divine right, to commit treason and revolt.

Is that not what the Republicans/conservatives want?

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

same here, I had to take 4 semesters of calculus, DE and linear algebra and I have never once in over 20 years had to integrate a 3rd order differential equation in polar coordinates. the ability to distinguish Bach from Brahms has never been the deciding factor in my getting a job either.

You have a computer science degree? Just why would you go into the army then?

 

[washunut]

Yeah, I basically agree, but if top-tier schools keep moving the target as the subsidies roll in, then what good are those subsidies? The kids who are truly needy seem to be able to get financial aid, while the rich ones don't need it. The kids getting pinched are the ones in the middle who end up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt at graduation because their parents made too much to qualify for financial aid beyond loans. Besides, the Harvards and Yales have no problem attracting more than enough bright students to fill the available slots. If they want to remain on top, they NEED the brightest and most motivated students, regardless of their socioeconomic background. Ultimately, the success of these schools will depend on the success of their students. I'm sure if the government subsidies ended they'd dig into their scholarship and endowment pockets to find a way to get the best kids through the door.

Starting with your last point. I agree that the best schools would, and do dig into their pockets if a student can't afford to go. The school my son goes to,which is ranked in the top 15 undergradute business schools, has what they call a "need blind" admissions policy. That is they accept/reject and then find out who can pay. As one of those families in the middle, I also agree that this is a very tough place to be. I guess I was putting the money that the school uses out of their endowment fund as a subsidy. If you only mean government subsidies, then I am fully aligned.

 

[Ahlevah]

Is that not what the Republicans/conservatives want?

I feel a derail coming, but since it's my thread that's OK, at least for the moment.

I don't think it's limited to Reblicans/conservatives. I see freedom under assault from everybody. While many "conservatives" seem to want the moral police in the bedroom, many "liberals" want a paternalistic government in every room of the house: "Want a gun? You can't be trusted. Besides, your kids might find it and shoot somebody. Want to smoke? Do it out under the bushes in the backyard, away from the kids and the neighbors. Want to shoot off fireworks on the 4th? No. Too dangerous for the kids. Your kids want Twinkies at school? That's bad for them. Makes them obese and gives them diabetes. What are you? Some kind of kid hater? Want to keep your money and fund your own retirement? You're too dumb to manage your own money. We'll let the highly-trained professionals at SSA do it for you, where you'll get a guaranteed return of 3% per annum. And keep your hateful mouth shut, especially in public. Don't even think hateful thoughts or we'll outlaw that, too.... " It reminds of the Cocteau Plan in Demolition Man and Edgar Friendly's response:

[A]ccording to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal?

Useless Movie Quotes - Demolition Man

 

[Ahlevah]

You have a computer science degree? Just why would you go into the army then?

Why not? And why do you assume he went to school and then joined the Army? Maybe he joined the Army first, got out, and then went to school on the GI Bill. Or maybe he went to West Point or got a full ROTC scholarship and a free education in exchange for a military obligation. Or maybe the Army or the Guard paid for his schooling while he was just an enlisted grunt in the service. There are plenty of people who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths and who don't want to be paying on student loans until they're ready to collect Social Security. And if he completes a twenty-year obligation in the Guard he can collect another retirement check while many of his contemporaries are congratulating themselves for finally getting out of debt.

 

[Technocratic]

You have a computer science degree? Just why would you go into the army then?

Like all degrees, when there are too many of them, it saturates the market. There are a lot of comp-sci people, and in the past, it depressed the value of the degree.

 

[OscarB63]

You have a computer science degree? Just why would you go into the army then?

I have a chemical engineering degree. I am in the National Guard because I am, at heart, a patriot. besides, as an active duty CPT I was bringing home nearly $9K a month while I was deployed last year.

take a look at the Officer pay scales, benefits, retirement plan , etc and then tell me why you wouldn't go into the Army.

 

[Technocratic]

Well, if it's full of fail, then why are foreign students coming here by the hundreds of thousands while their families pay full tuition to attend American colleges and universities:

Because that addresses the post-secondary, and mine was in reference to the comment about secondary.

There are many problems with the "successful" American University system, too, namely based on its business model.

1. American universities are very expensive. Unjustifiably high costs practically bankrupt people or puts them into permanent debt slavery. The value of the degree, often, is not worth the paper its printed on, because of other problems.

2. American universities are much easier to get into than other countries (such as Germany), which is one reason why they are popular. The problem is that this allows a glut of degrees that depresses the market wage for those jobs. Also, it waters down the curriculum and allows for nonsense degrees to become dominant to fill the demand, which is all colleges nowadays care about: money. American schools will teach anything for money, no matter how useless. THis is very popular.

3. In the past, a lot of chinese came here because of the comparative opportunities to their own country, but now, China is actually siphoning off huge numbers of high talent from U.S. Universities with large grants, comfy positions, and more science/math opportunities. AMericans have been spending less on science and math education compared to China, so China is now becoming popular relative to the United States for math and science talent.

American universities run largely on prestige, generated by cost, to seem better than they really are. This prestige effect, combined with "we'll take anyone" and the fact that it's almost impossible to fail out of "good" schools like Yale and Harvard, help create a nice immigration incentive for study and life. That, and the U.S. was relatively more prosperous, and therefore could spend more on education and had more job opportunities. That's not going to continue. It's already reversing as American universities lose personnel to other nations, kids get more and more useless degrees, and costs go up ad up.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

I have a chemical engineering degree. I am in the National Guard because I am, at heart, a patriot. besides, as an active duty CPT I was bringing home nearly $9K a month while I was deployed last year.

take a look at the Officer pay scales, benefits, retirement plan , etc and then tell me why you wouldn't go into the Army.

lol, chemical engineering. You are a nerd, like my parents and brother. I took a look and know the salary, retirement, etc and I know that I too would join the army. That is if I felt like I would not make it in the private sector. Fortuanately, my dad made it and he earns over $200,000 and gets great perks for his family.

But why would you not want to join the Air Force? Do you have bad eyesight?