He accurately describes the state of the American university right now. To a tee. The expanding administrative fat, a good deal of it composed of toxic diversicrats. Profs who rail against structural oppression and income inequality, yet cannot be moved to to utter a single word of protest against the pittance wages paid to the adjunct who may or may not have a closet down the hall, nevermind the grad assistants doing their work for them while they "research" their obscure, uber-specialized subjects that no one cares about and no one reads. All the while, charging students, most of whom would've been better off working and building careers over that same span of time, absurdly high tuition, justified by the incredibly misleading statistic that "if you graduate from college, you'll make, on average, a million dollars more over your lifetime."
As others have stated, the humanities and social sciences are the canaries in the coalmine for the real sciences and other disciplines.
And, perhaps more importantly, why does the government subsidize those degrees?
If someone is going to pay for a degree, they should do a return on investment (ROI) analysis. Do I need this degree to help get a job? Will it help me get a job that will have a high enough salary that will allow me to pay the loans off? Can I get this same degree at a cheaper university? If no, then perhaps I don't get it, or perhaps I get it in my free time, online, when I am not earning a living.
If the government is going to subsidize (in any form) a degree, there should be a societal ROI analysis...how many African-Studies graduates does the nation need? 1? 5? Zero? OK, then don't pay for any more than that. How many Electrical Engineering degrees does the nation need? 10,000? 20,000? OK, then don't pay for any more than that.
I think you pay for two things in a university: (1) an education/degree, and (2) spcial access to certain employers. Almost all universities provide an education. The Ivy Leagues and the top 20's provide access to certain employers that the others do not. If you are paying an Ivy League tuition for a non-top 20 school, maybe you are overpaying...if you are paying for any degree that won't help you pay your loans, then maybe you are overpaying...unless you are independently wealthy and can afford it, and you want to give a nice gift to your kid.
Notre Dame does provide both (1) and (2), which is nice. Even so, some degrees from Notre Dame are probably worth as much as a community college certification when you apply for a job. You have to be smart about your degree choices.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
Programs routinely admit graduate students, knowing there is already a massive glut, knowing that these students will accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in debt, with a small chance that they will gain tenure-track employment. You'd be shocked how many of these students are ignorant of the dismal job prospects, in large part because their profs never tell them this. Yes, they should research this on their own, but that doesn't reduce the irresponsibility of universities and faculty propagating this system.
Many grad students at second and third tier schools go into debt because of the limited assistantship or fellowship dollars available. Happens all the time. I know a couple at U of Iowa where the wife gets around 20 k a school year and they live in the basement of student housing.
There are great moments, but much of the praise heaped upon us by some is overstated. Teachers cannot replace parents, and this is the root of most of the problems facing us. As I get older, I have more and more appreciation for the people who actually create things, and no, I'm not talking about "job creators." I'm often talking about what many consider blue-collar, manual labor jobs. They're as noble as any jobs we have.
Asking if some teachers should be teachers, even if they lack college degrees, is a fun thing to ponder, but, of course, it will never happen. If I ruled the world, would I allow some to teach, absent college degrees? Sure. If someone has, for instance, demonstrated both a gift for writing, and also a proficiency in teaching people in some context, it would be foolish to exclude them from consideration, just because he lacked a college degree.
A little cynical and angry. All good. I will add two points to the discussion: in my almost 30 years in the Insurance industry where 98% or more of executives have college degrees and some from top line schools the two of the three best I ever worked with never attended college. They were very conscious of their perceived shortcomings and compensated for it in glaring ways. One bordering on the tragic.
The other point is that in hiring many people over the years - some just out of school and others with 3-7 years experience, I have learned not to hire from the top line schools. I have found that in most cases, graduates from second or third tier schools tend to have a chip on their shoulder. They have something to prove, to earn. The top tier ones seem and many are just entitled.
There are many things wrong with higher ed, but none is worse than the cost. It’s horrible. Universities waste money like you wouldn’t believe.
And when you charge so much, you get people thinking economically, in terms of financial returns on investment rather than in other, unquantifiable ways.
Liberal arts majors are not being trained; they’re being educated. And believe it or not, they are just as competitive for most jobs as are their classmates in the business school.
We've talked about this for several times. Every time you're very defensive, thinking we attacked liberal arts education. No, we understand the value of liberal arts education, but it is for a few elites, not for mass, not for average Joe. With less quantity and high quality, a liberal arts degree should be the hardest degree to get, not an easy degree to get. If you want mass production of liberal arts degrees, it's kind like you want to mass produce Van Gogh, but you won't many Van Gogh.
And it’s not defensiveness to note the difference between education and training. It’s not for everybody, sure. But neither should it only be for rich people, or the “elite.”
Nobody is trying to mass produce Van Goghs. You misunderstand what the purpose of education is.
Big Education is pushing people to get humanities degrees...and then when people are in debt with no ability to get a job, you say, "Well, it's not for everyone."
That was my point.
If we only need 5 Gender Studies degrees per year for the country, why give loans for 20,000 of them?...or, why even encourage people who can't afford it to spend money on it.
There should be a disclosure statement before they write their check: "This degree is in the bottom 5% of majors in its ability to prepare you for getting a job after graduation. You will likely need straight A's. Even then, you will likely be getting your job because you are very, very smart (if you are) and not because you spent 4 years studying for this degree. If you don't have straight A's, and still get a job, it may be with a salary per year that is less than the yearly tuition for the degree."
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
That was just to poke you with a stick. Don't let that stop you from making a substantive argument. Or, if you don't have a substantive argument, ok...use it as an excuse not to reply.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
I went to school and received education and training, and I used my degrees to obtain jobs that allowed me to pay off loans. My children will do the same.
I educate myself on my own time by reading voraciously. I can sign up for free classes or even pay for classes to educate myself on non career oriented topics. There is so much available for free online. These other topics interest me, but I don't go into debt for them, because they are mere education...which is to say that they are a hobby.
Who in their right mind would pay $300,000 for a piece of paper that says they are skilled in their hobby? Only rich people, or people who are conned by Big Education into going into massive debt for very little reason at all. We are encouraging people to go into unnecessary debt...and when you encourage people to do that, they will do that.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
Not only can Liberals form them with (re)education. They can also enslave them with debt.
And, interestingly enough, Obama made that indebtedness direct to the government, not indirectly to a bank holding a federal guaranteed student loan.
Once indebted, many will feel helpless, and feel that they have to vote for government benefits (like debt forgiveness). These people are directly indebted to the government (not to banks thanks to Obama), so they can be controlled (that is, they feel like they are voting for people who control their indebtedness, and therefore they are more likely to vote for the party which is most likely to forgive their debt). It is a direct form of political control in a democratic republic. Lots of things wrong with our current system.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
Should "investment in the soul" to the detriment of the individual's financial health be something the government encourages? No, it should not be encouraged by the government.
Your post is the sales pitch of a con artist if you are trying to get the poor to go so that you (your school) can get government money. You are using them, and conning them into seeking something that will cause substantial loss to them, just so you can get government money.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
Your sentiment is from the 1800's, or 1700's...and it was a common sentiment when mostly the very rich went to university, but even then it was not as expensive. Times have changed. Now we are encouraging the lower middle class and poor to go into debt for these bullshit degrees that will leave them hopeless. We should encourage the lower middle class and poor to go to university...but only for degrees that will improve their lot in life, not for degrees that will leave them worse off than they were before.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
My oldest is finishing a joint Law/MPP program. She just got a very nice offer from a big firm for govt relations. She also has an offer from the legislature.
My second is starting law school and I have no doubt he will have pretty good offers when he gets out.
Both humanities majors.
My youngest is an undergrad finance major. He shouldn’t have any trouble either.
My daughter could have just gone into govt relations with a bachelors and done fine. However, the extra three years with the joint degree will put her well above where she would be earning capacity wise. The point is you need a plan and to work at your studies, not just party in a drunken stupor, taking cake courses for 4 years. If you do, normally you will be fine. Also, despite our current system of higher ed, some may actually come out educated.
My point is that the central and left portions of the bell curve, who pick fluff majors, and who pay $60k/year...they probably aren't going to do well.
I don't think you and I are disagreeing on this.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
not. And yes, if they go, they will usually pick a liberal arts major because there is more fluff there.
Which goes back to my original point. It depends on the student. The smart and motivated generally do fine, no matter the major. Those that aren’t, not so much. There are always of course exceptions.
I just saw the stats on this. Humanities majors are falling behind their cohorts in the job market. Understand, I despise the effort, mostly from the Right, to make college into job training. However, you're either "privileged" or delusional if you argue that job prospects should not be a variable in making the decision about a major or even going to college. Telling prospective college students who consider entering the humanities or social sciences, "Do your work, graduate, and you'll be fine" is irresponsible. Statistically, a whole lot of those people will not be fine. Many will end up working low-paying jobs after emerging from college, sometimes working alongside people in the same or similar positions, who never attended college, without the debt of the college graduates. This can't be repeated enough: the smart, ambitious college graduates would outpace most of their peers, even if they had never attended college. It's great that they attended college, but then assuming that most of the rest would also be best served in attending four-year colleges does not follow.
And here's the other thing to consider: if college is about education and producing better, informed citizens, are our universities doing that, in general? I think it's clear that they are not generally doing that. The level of ignorance, some of which is measured, is astounding for students who spent five years at institutions of higher learning. And the levels of apathy are similarly astounding. Millennials, for all the big talk, ended up being mostly no-shows at the ballot box and pale in comparison even to their parents' generation in terms of civic engagement.
It would be one thing if we saw college students graduating and demonstrating that they received fine educations. That's not what's happening. And for some of them, and this will sound hyperbolic, but they've emerged dumber than when they arrived, if they've had the misfortune to be re-educated into the dopey grievance belief system that permeates public universities and elite private universities, from the administrative level down. Four-year degrees are the most overrated product in the US, right now.
I’m not endorsing the current state of higher education far from it.
I’m also not advocating for the kid who wants to party for four years, sing On Wisconsin, get mediocre grades in some McMajor and then expect to walk into a good job. As I said, most of those don’t belong at a university or college.
What I am saying is if you are smart, take your work seriously, and have a plan, you will do fine with a humanities degree. And that degree will prove to your ultimate employer that you are intelligent, educated, and committed to doing well, something you won’t have if you are just smart with no degree. Which is why those that are smart usually get a degree.
If college students aren't receiving much of an education at most of our institutions, it sometimes doesn't make sense for the smart ones to attend, either. Even the smart ones spend very little time reading and studying. Significantly less than a generation ago.
A few Silicon Valley companies now actually want smart kids who will not go to college. I expect more to do so as it becomes more apparent that, in general, higher education is sub-par, particularly relative to the costs.
