I would disagree. As a graduate of a technical major, I would say the best bet is a mix of classroom and online classes, and it should bring the ridiculous cost of college down - because it is way too high. I wouldn't want to take any math classes online nor higher level science. But History and other low-level electives? C'mon.
Got a call from a professor at half time last night regarding $ at Universities
- Thread starter Obliviax
- Start date
Part of the issue is that a lot people can and will take courses offline that are not in their major but not required . Think general info courses most freshmen take. Bio science for English or education majors. Art for a chem major.
About 20% could easily be done online but 20% less people on campus has a significant impact on dorms, food services, local businesses, and more even if they charge the same tuition. And there will be significant pressure to lower tuition by competing sources.
She is a big Steeler fan. I was a Steeler fan but transplanted to the Browns. She called me to BS about the crazy game. (one of C Collinsworth's female football crazies). I took the dog for a walk and we hit all kinds of subject.
But, hey, why do I need to explain this to you?
College pricing is really no different from drug pricing, though for some reason it never takes the same heat. In both cases:
1. There are significant third party subsidies, which
2. Enable colleges to set high list prices to create unjustified perceptions of quality,
3. With respect to a service that has been characterized as a "necessity," while
4. Allowing them to price discriminate among potential buyers of their services
5. On a basis that has little to do with merit.
Last edited:
Yeah, there has to be a way to pay the debt service on those high-priced "assets" that were supposed to enhance education. But let's be serious, half of them were just for show, and industry -- even if they could afford to send people to campus -- wouldn't find value in using them. This experience could certainly weed out the schools that went down the window dressing path.
I recall reading that the primary driver in the rise in the cost of post secondary education was in administrative areas, not instructors. It's a true shame if they lay off the latter to preserve the former.
Daniels is a fantastic university president. Brings value. (My son's dream grad school btw is Purdue (he wants to do propulsion)).
Last edited:
The point of those electives is to give individuals a well rounded education. College level history classes and the like are or should not be about learning historical facts. Classes should be discussing historical events. Examining their causes, the repercussions, and how the world was impacted. The spur discussion and get young minds to think about how events impact the world. I will agree that many of these classes fall far short of the goal, and are not taught with the rigor expected of a college class. Taking many of these classes is an epic waste of time given the fact that they do not challenge students to think.
I would be in favor of eliminating these classes for many vocational degrees, as in most cases they are not serving the purpose for which they were originally intended.
You are talking about another level of bullshit about college - making you take many non-related courses to your major just to make you go longer and bring in more money. All under the guise of making people more 'well-rounded'. That is the greatest bullshit story ever told.
I would argue that college needs to refocus on their mission. It is a new world. The point of college, to me, is twofold. First, to get an education so that you can make a living while contributing to society. The second is to provide a half-way house from being a kid into being a functioning adult.
Frankly, we have far too many people in certain majors (elementary ed, CSIs) and far too many meaningless majors (music therapy). If your kid is not going to college with a post-degree plan they are making a huge mistake that will potentially cost them several hundred thousand dollars. A kids major is a choice that comes with consequences. Like a lot of things in America, kids make stupid choices (with and without adult supervision) then wonder why they are suffering consequences.
We’ve been down this path many times. Marginal quality colleges will struggle to survive in a cost sensitive market, but there will be a continuing demand for expensive high quality colleges for the wealthy students to get the best education that money can buy. A school like Lycoming or Albright might struggle, but not Princeton or Columbia.
This could be a self-solving problem being that enrollment in teacher prep programs have significantly declined.
You’re into another issue: bloated credit requirements to justify fringe faculty and classes. Art (as one example) is not unimportant, but perhaps the department size could be reduced to account for the reality of people pursuing that major?
Where does Penn State fall? My guess is it’s hit pretty darned hard in all of this. It’s a pretty good state school historically that’s had tuition skyrocket to untenable levels. It’s a fairly obvious question of ROI at this point for many non-technical majors.
Students in those prospective fields will go to schools offering better degree programs, presenting a dilemma long term for Penn State.
For many majors, Penn State is an overpriced school...
I would agree that is the intent of those classes, but in practice I don't see it working. I've worked with some brilliant engineers and physicists over the years. Many of them are downright inept in anything outside of their discipline. Despite those electives many of them couldn't carry on basic conversations about historical events or art or music or psychology.
Same for the liberal arts majors. That math elective doesn't help them with their kids' Algebra II homework.
The intent is a well rounded education, but I don't think that smattering of electives is providing it.
If that’s the way you feel, I’m not going to argue, and feel how you wish. I did say that for vocational type degrees it does not seem necessary.
Classical education is about providing folks a base to be lifelong learners and adapt, and remain relevant throughout their career and life as they continue to learn and build skills. The problem I stated is that the way these classes have been delivered has changed drastically at many schools over the years.
There are now many degree programs that have a laser focus on a very narrow subject. They are vocational in nature as they aim to prepare the student on a very specific subject so they can gain employment in that area. These are fine degrees and often lead to excellent job opportunities. But we should call them what they are. Vocational degrees, often very sophisticated ones that require highly specialized training on difficult subject matter, but preparation for a specific job nonetheless. Electives where everyone is going through the motions so not benefit anyone. If institutions feel these classes are still important to provide a well rounded education than they should do them priority, that is the point.
Quick story. West Point requires cadets to take subjects such as history and English lit. Most cadets there are studying a technical subject such as systems engineering and many are very strong in math and sciences. The history and English classes are notoriously difficult for everyone, and especially the the STEM cadets in many cases. I’ve head from many cadets that they hated these classes and bitched up a storm, but later realized they were an integral part of being an educated individual. Take it for what you may, but in my view classes of this nature, done well, provide significant value.
I agree. Some of these laser focused majors on dubious subject matter are almost criminal. Something like music therapy is a very good example. You’ve learned a specific skill set that has limited practical application in the real world. A stark contrast from a specific medical/science or focused business degree. Students must be sensitive and aware to choose a highly relevant major when they are picking a specific track that is more career oriented in nature.
Depends on your definition of "elite." Places like Harvard and Stanford currently reject somewhere between 3-5 times the number of applicants with the same academic credentials of those they admit. They are also nowhere near as reliant on tuition dollars as some might think.
maybe colleges should start by not paying six figure salaries to professors to teach one class a week
Haven't heard anything but i am not in a position to hear anything. However, IMO you have 2 competing arguments to consider
. As you read this thread simple demographics suggest this was happening pre COVID. COVID made it worse
. If on line learning proves as effective [???] as in class learning that should completely change the dynamics. You could cut 20% in a heartbeat.
On the other hand
. the party in control in Washington has a vested interest in continuing higher learning as it is.
. loan forgiveness or free school [allowing rate increases]
. direct financial assistance colleges to help stem the tide [although the tide may be there for a long time past COVID]
Of the 2 I'll bet on government bailouts. just give the D's a few months
And maybe many of those professors will take the multiple of their "six figure salaries" they generate in research dollars somewhere else.
Back in the day taking a non related course had one of two purposes. If it was easy it could prop up your GPA. If it was pass fail it allowed me to sleep in and miss it half the time. However it did allow me to get "more rounded" at night at the Gaff.
Not all professors bring in huge amounts of research money, but many who only teach one class do.
As for colleges being "just teachers and buildings" take your favorite school and checjk out how many administrative staff it has.
here is the issue....it is truly a worldwide economy now. So when Asian and European students are NOT taking those other 'well rounded' classes but a heavier courseload in their major, they come out with what is essentially a masters degree light in their field. They are more advanced technically in their education then their American counterparts. And then guess who is getting the jobs....not the American kids. The amount of white collar jobs going oversee's is pretty shocking and is the next shoe to drop. We saw a lot of manufacturing jobs leaving the USA over the past 25+ years, now you are seeing the migration of white collar jobs leaving the USA. Or you are seeing more highly educated and qualified workers from Asia/Europe coming to USA to find jobs.
World changes, adapt or die. Taking 12-16 credits of classes that are relatively worthless to your future job description is not going to be comptetive as the world moves forward. This isn't the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's anymore where you went to college to get a well rounded education, came out and found yourself and maybe got a job somewhere doing something and then worked up the ladder from there. that type of stuff just doens't happen much anymore.
In the line of good lawyer jokes, that's a start.
Teaching, really any class, is not that hard.
I don’t disagree in principle with what you said. But I still think that a classical approach to education is still valuable for many, including those that aspire to be in positions where they act as a leader or decision maker someday.
Too many institutions go through the motions with these electives. They are taught by adjuncts or whatever and do not contain the level of intellectual discourse required to make the classes worthwhile to the majority of the students. My point was do it right, or just drop the pretense.
Certain schools or programs can and should offer tracks with technical or vocational training for the majors and individuals who want that. Those that see the value in classical education interspersed with their “career” education can gravitate to those schools and programs that do it correctly.
how about this, start giving classes that actually teach that. give a leadership class. give a management class. give a legit class on how to make and give presentations. give a class on critical decision making. Start giving classes that are about the soft skills you are saying that the 'well rounded' education gives by proxy. having to take 3 or 6 classes of just general stuff just doesn't give that much benefit but if you took those credits and gave more real life soft skills would help a lot.
how are they going to do that when the profs don't know any of that stuff?
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Levenson's Takeaways: Star power on display at Rivals Camp Series in Dallas- Latest: Marshall Levenson
-
-
-
