Is it time for reforms of higher education in the United States?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/nation ... 6b6399ba79

A liberal newspaper offers a conservative viewpoint.

To sum up: Republicans do not want adults learning whatever they want. Republicans do not want adults spending their money however they please. Republicans do not want people protesting against Republican policies. Big surprise.

People do not go into the military because of the stupid wars and multiple tours and broken VA. There is no incentive. No return on investment for the grunts. Education, however, can be a practical and smart ROI.

And cue the "but women's studies or French lit is not a valid degree" whiners. How many French lit degrees compared to computer science or medicine are given out? What other degrees are they going for at the same time?

I think it's fine if people major in studies of ancient civilizations, as long as they are wealthy and never expect to work. Historically, this is exactly what college was about. A "summer camp" for wealthy young people to have conversations with other interesting, wealthy people and indulge in intellectual discoveries, and to drink a lot, as a prelude to their lives of leisure.

Why no go back to the old set of expectations and values? If you get that sort of education, you should be prepared for the role for which you were trained (being a layabout dandy). What is the problem with that? I guess the problem is, the government provides unlimited grants to train more layabout dandies, and to employ their trainers. That's what's new; and that is what I think people are objecting to. The "government funding is declining" rhetoric is actually dramatically mistaken if you look at loan disbursements in addition to cash grants. Through loans, the government is stealth funding an insane binge in humanities degrees (or just non-academic degrees) that may be a net loss for society, if you consider the lost years of productivity of the young people. I know I spent too many years in school, for one. Many people are burned out by the time they are expected to work, not having learned any useful skill.

seb146 wrote:

To sum up: Republicans do not want adults learning whatever they want. Republicans do not want adults spending their money however they please. Republicans do not want people protesting against Republican policies. Big surprise.

People do not go into the military because of the stupid wars and multiple tours and broken VA. There is no incentive. No return on investment for the grunts. Education, however, can be a practical and smart ROI.

And cue the "but women's studies or French lit is not a valid degree" whiners. How many French lit degrees compared to computer science or medicine are given out? What other degrees are they going for at the same time?

This isn't about people spending their money however they please. It's more about how taxpayer money is allocated toward higher education.

I've found it difficult to find good data on the number of graduates by degree fields. One set of data linked to below gives information up to 2005, the other one is for 2009. You won't see data for French Lit. or any other Lit, just as you won't find breakdowns for types of biology.

2009 Census Data for persons 25 years or older: https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-18.pdf

Degrees by year through 2005: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07 ... 07_261.asp

With the moronic Betsy DeVos in charge, the education system is up shit creek without a paddle.

BobPatterson wrote:

Is it time for reforms of higher education in the United States?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/nation ... 6b6399ba79

A liberal newspaper offers a conservative viewpoint.

Some people just don't know the meaning of hard work. I could give examples of young people who've poured everything into making their dreams come true, no nice hand outs, no $20,000 towards college or anything like that. Good number of set backs too, then after another setback, the door opens, half a world away.

You'd hate the kind of education some of the left-leaning people I work with have. No crybabies, no "junky" degrees. They've worked damned hard getting very serious degrees and they continue to work long hours in their day jobs while furthering their education at night.

Some of these whiners need to get it through their heads however than an educated public is probably going to be valuable down the track. Of course it's better that the wealthy-old-money conservatives keep their cosy little old-boys clubs free of the undeserving working class, but in the end, it'll be to the detriment of country later on.

The problem is that education is now viewed by many only as a means to generating wealth, rather than a benefit to society in and of itself. When I was young, degrees like "ABBA studies" or "Surfing Studies" would have been considered worthless. Now though, the worthless degrees are apparently things like English, Art, History or Music- basically anything which doesn't promise extra zeros on your paycheck.

So we can look forward to a world where everybody is tremendously wealthy, and they sit around all day discussing nothing but how much money they have. What a fascinating world that will be.

A music degree is fine, if you can wait tables and earn the tuition money. It won't repay a $200,000 loan. So the professors' and college administrators' wild greed will have to meet some kind of reality. A music degree is also fine if you are wealthy. I love music and wise influential figures suggested to take as many art and music history classes as possible. I will always be grateful! One solution to this problem is to reduce tuition costs by 85-90% by laying off all non-faculty staff, eliminating all university pensions and selling off unnecessary facilities. These are sincere suggestions that would allow these degrees to make sense.

Flighty wrote:

A music degree is fine, if you can wait tables and earn the tuition money. It won't repay a $200,000 loan. So the professors' and college administrators' wild greed will have to meet some kind of reality. A music degree is also fine if you are wealthy. I love music and wise influential figures suggested to take as many art and music history classes as possible. I will always be grateful! One solution to this problem is to reduce tuition costs by 85-90% by laying off all non-faculty staff, eliminating all university pensions and selling off unnecessary facilities. These are sincere suggestions that would allow these degrees to make sense.

Sounds like you want a mail order degree. Not a real word university degree.

Flighty wrote:

A music degree is fine, if you can wait tables and earn the tuition money. It won't repay a $200,000 loan.

It'll repay a $20k loan, which is what a music degree at a public university would actually cost. And if it's not a public university, how do you propose to regulate it?

Another thing to remember is that not every job requires a degree of the type you deem worthwhile. If we're now saying that only rich people should be allowed to do artistic degrees, then presumably there's going to be a huge increase in the number of STEM graduates. That means lower wages for those graduates, greater unemployment, and loss in skills in areas which actually need liberal arts degrees, few though they may be.

I think personally that the federal government should not be in the business of loaning money at all. I'd prefer a means-tested grant system.

When I was in college, I was required to take eight art and literature courses in addition to an entire year of a literature course at five units per semester as a Freshman. The art and literature majors were required to take three x 3 unit classes in science.

This kind of overemphasis on things that are pretty and entertaining, but not useful is a problem with current higher education. I like Shakespeare and Beethoven, but let's not pretend that papers written about these artists or their work will solve world hunger or the energy crisis or anything else. I always heard the "well-rounded" argument used, but evidently there is a double standard in which STEM majors are not well-rounded by virtue of studying STEM, but art and literature majors are automatically well-rounded even though they don't study very much STEM.

That's my complaint. But I do think that education is very important. But in a time when we face global warming denialists, anti-GMO and anti-vaccine activists, and an actual non-satirical Flat-Earth movement, we need to ensure that EVERY student gets a firm grounding in math, statistics, and science. Endless five-paragraph format papers on whether the witches in MacBeth represent the main character's own personal demons are not a good use of students' time.

A daily segment on Fox and Friends??? I roll on the floor laughing whenever an F&F anchor says "College education is not for everybody"

The elite conservatives think higher education should be accessible to only rich and poor should settle for vocational courses at best forever, and the government shouldnot interfere(by helping poor) to change this trend. If we are an isolated country this would work, but in a flat world(globalization) this approach would not work.

Thomas Friedman explained this during his "The World is Flat" tour. The US spends $700B/year(2005) taxpayers money to efficiently destroy things on Military Industrial Complex but will not spend taxpayer money to educate its own citizens. Also, we spend money on "maintaining lifestyle" rather than saving for a college fund whereas a poor illiterate farming family in India is ready to skip a meal every day so one or more kids can get a higher education.

So both government and individuals have their priorities misplaced.

DocLightning wrote:

When I was in college, I was required to take eight art and literature courses in addition to an entire year of a literature course at five units per semester as a Freshman. The art and literature majors were required to take three x 3 unit classes in science.

Thanks for telling about your experience, Doc. I heve never before seen so stark an example of what goes on in academia.

Can this sort of imbalance represent anything more than subsidization of liberal arts faculty?

How many of those 10 (or similar) courses would you have elected to take without being forced to do so?

In preparation for being a doctor, were you prevented from taking more desirable courses because of the drain on your time by those 10 required ones?

BobPatterson wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

When I was in college, I was required to take eight art and literature courses in addition to an entire year of a literature course at five units per semester as a Freshman. The art and literature majors were required to take three x 3 unit classes in science.

Thanks for telling about your experience, Doc. I heve never before seen so stark an example of what goes on in academia.

Can this sort of imbalance represent anything more than subsidization of liberal arts faculty?

How many of those 10 (or similar) courses would you have elected to take without being forced to do so?

In preparation for being a doctor, were you prevented from taking more desirable courses because of the drain on your time by those 10 required ones?

I probably would have taken two of those ten courses without being forced to do so. If I had not been forced to waste so much time in courses that did not interest me and did not teach me anything useful for my life, I would have minored in Spanish, instead. And *THAT* would have been useful.

Also, of all the required reading assignments I was given from about 9th grade on, there were less than ten that I actually enjoyed. Jane Eyre, Erek (a story about a knight who beats opponents up, then gets married and boinks his wife relentlessly, then goes back to beating people up while taking breaks to boink his wife, what's not to like?), Remains of the Day, a few of the Shakespeare plays, and that's about it. The rest was sheer drudgery.

Also, from 7th to 12th grade, we were made to write paper after paper in a "five paragraph format." In this format, there to be was an introductory paragraph, three substance paragraphs, and a concluding paragraph. As soon as I got to Stanford and tried this format on my first paper, my TA immediately E-mailed me and told me I had to redo the paper. "This isn't high school. We don't use the five-paragraph format here." There was no instruction on what format I *was* supposed to use. I finally wound up using an adaptation of this format and eked out a set of A-s and B+s.

When I went back to visit my high school, I told my English teacher what had happened and asked her why we spent five years laboriously repeating this format when it had no practical application beyond high school. Her answer was that this was what the University of Michigan taught, but I had a family friend who was an English professor there and she disagreed. I was frustrated that I had literally wasted thousands of hours of my life doing what amounted to busywork for my district's English department.

By contrast, from the beginning of my science and math courses (my major was Biological Sciences), I found that my high school education had more than prepared me for the very fast-paced and rigorous curricula to be found at an institution like Stanford. In my five years at Stanford (B.S. and M.S.), I learned to within a limit of human knowledge about the inner workings of a cell and I also had the opportunity to contribute to humanity's general fund of scientific knowledge. That education prepared me for the rigors of medical school.

I have never once used Kant, Rousseau, or Socrates in my adult life. While a familiarity with Shakespeare leads one to cultural competency and to understand the origin of common phrases ("There is a method to his madness,"), these works have never been of any practical use to me in my work or my life. There is certainly a value to learning proper grammatical conventions, as written communication is broadly applicable to daily life, but to have to complete most of a humanities major to study science? Absurd.

I certainly believe that those who wish to study literature and the arts should be free to do so, but they should be forced to study more science because *that* has a profound impact on their day-to-day lives. We should not be forced to study shiny baubles and pretty pictures.

BobPatterson wrote:

Is it time for reforms of higher education in the United States?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/nation ... 6b6399ba79

A liberal newspaper offers a conservative viewpoint.

I think a reform in higher education involves more money for it, and more avenues to obtain it.

The Green Beret in this article is highly ignorant of his own education support while trashing that which he never attended and took part of .

He Joined the army at 17, got 15 years of subsidized education at the taxpayer's expense, while providing a valuable service to our country. He then made use of the GI Bill and got his college education at Campbell , and then his MBA recently at a for-profit christian school. He had the drive to succeed and get an education,and got one.

Colleges are necessary because they help teach people how to learn

Where he goes off the rails is the extremely stupid and highly Ignorant view of colleges as " Liberal indoctrination sites". Colleges are usually the first place where isolated snowflakes of all walks of life are first exposed to other cultures and people. I know that was the case for me. I met many people of diverse backgrounds when I got to college, and it was a lot of exposure to other cultures that made me understand that the isolated local community I grew up in did not represent the end all , be all, of what being an American was. It is that way at a lot of schools, and so while the conservatives that never went to college scream about intolerance of their own beliefs, what usually is the case is that they try to tell everyone else they are wrong. This is what I saw on campus all the time, and it wasn't just Christian Conservatives that were guilty of this.
Most students do not have time to protest all the time ,and the reason most come away with respect for other cultures, is that they want others to respect theirs.


As for educational reform, we need more money for education beyond high school. We are moving into a world where automation and competition require highly skilled and well rounded education. Everything up to high school is mostly geared towards rote memorization, at least that was the way it was when i went to school. Application and critical thinking are what get applied in college and post grad work.
Everyone needs that extra exposure, unless we truly want to be a nation of wal-mart greeters, hamburger flippers, and basic manufacturing labor, that anyone can do.

Those that argue about Liberal arts degrees ignore this simple fact. Those with a bachelor's degree , earn on average, 450 dollars more a week,

That is 22,000 more per year.. So after 30 years, is that 660,000 dollars worth it?

https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

It was worth it to that Green Beret.

zckls04 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

A music degree is fine, if you can wait tables and earn the tuition money. It won't repay a $200,000 loan.

It'll repay a $20k loan, which is what a music degree at a public university would actually cost. And if it's not a public university, how do you propose to regulate it?

Another thing to remember is that not every job requires a degree of the type you deem worthwhile. If we're now saying that only rich people should be allowed to do artistic degrees, then presumably there's going to be a huge increase in the number of STEM graduates. That means lower wages for those graduates, greater unemployment, and loss in skills in areas which actually need liberal arts degrees, few though they may be.

I think personally that the federal government should not be in the business of loaning money at all. I'd prefer a means-tested grant system.

How to "regulate?" You answered it. I am just saying stop federal funding of student loans and grants. Am I so mean to suggest "only rich people should be allowed to do artistic degrees..." It's not me saying that! It is their pocketbooks! They use the same system at Tiffany's! If you don't have the money then get lost!

In the past, each term, you needed to appear at the College Bursar's office with a check, or cash, amounting to that term's tuition money. My grandfather said he would stand in line to pay for my mother's tuition, which he did, in full (having earned it with great effort). Ahead of him would be parents saying "gee I just don't have the tuition money this week.." And students were kicked out! People didn't have this "drinking straw to the federal treasury." It was real money. It governed the cost and the value of the degrees.

People have this sleazy attitude now that the government will pay for everything. That's not a morally coherent viewpoint. It is just squalor of the mind.

Without an unlimited budget, and perhaps by limiting international students' visits to temporary, tuition cost will fall, and it will be possible to work hard and pay for a degree again. Or, maybe we can have a government funded university system for high IQ people, like they do in other countries. Middle and low IQ people can stay at the high school degree level. That's actually possible to fund. Our current regime and rate of cost increase is not possible to fund.

Flighty wrote:

.

People have this sleazy attitude now that the government will pay for everything. That's not a morally coherent viewpoint. It is just squalor of the mind.

That is not the attitude people have . The squalor of mind is the ignorance that people such as yourself have, in putting everyone's motivations into your limited viewpoint.

Education is a something everyone needs, that has a time value cost. Not every one goes into the military after high school, in fact less than 10% go onto a military enlistment. 200,000 out of 3.3 million. The Government should provide job training for those outside of the military, as our country's future is more dependent on the education and experience of our work force, than our ability to fight a war.

Flighty wrote:

People have this sleazy attitude now that the government will pay for everything. That's not a morally coherent viewpoint.

Believing otherwise is not an intellectually coherent viewpoint. Morally acceptable or otherwise (always a silly argument to make anyway since morals are ridiculously subjective) it is in our collective, federal and otherwise, interest to be as educated as possible.

Flighty wrote:

Or, maybe we can have a government funded university system for high IQ people, like they do in other countries. Middle and low IQ people can stay at the high school degree level. That's actually possible to fund. Our current regime and rate of cost increase is not possible to fund.

Replace IQ with "qualified" (plenty of smart people can't be arsed to get out of bed in the morning) and this is exactly the proposal Bernie had last year. One that would have addressed the looming Doctor shortage as well and was also financially defensible without major alteration to the tax code.

casinterest wrote:

Education is a something everyone needs, that has a time value cost. Not every one goes into the military after high school, in fact less than 10% go onto a military enlistment.

Indeed. Not only that, but until the day comes that the military is no longer entitled to carry on their anachronistic (as well as "illegal as hell" in literally any other place) practice of hiring discrimination based on physical attributes, the argument of "Just join the army if you want free stuff" is invalid anyway.

I don't know why people hang on to that one so much...

i got a degree in Accounting, back in the day. i was forced to take courses in western civilizations and music. These courses open my mind to a new world or old world.



Nobody can take that knowledge away from me. I am thankful, that i was forced to take these classes because my accounting degree, was a total waste of money. I worked 6 months for federal reserve auditing banks. It was so boring, i hated going to work each day. So i quit and found a job that i actually liked.

my degree is pretty much obsolete, so much has changed. The courses i took in history and music has changed me. I love going to the opera, or classical concert. My parents listen to country music, so this was wonderful awaking for me. Having a education is so much more than just being able to make money. It makes me sad when people think people should only be educated so that they can make more money. While money is important, it's not everything.

Doesn't it boil down to one simple question?

Do you want people to get knowledge or education. The latter is a much broader concept.

Carly Fiorina's has a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy and medieval history as first degree, adding her MBA only years later.

Best regards
Thomas

The notion that one goes to college strictly to earn a trade is shallow and dangerous. This idea became much more popular during the late 70s and early 80s. The idea that an English class, for example, is unnecessary or a waste of one's time is uninformed, foolish. The much maligned English composition class, for all its naysayers, may be one of the most important classes a student can attend. Learning to formulate an argument, support it with reason and fact and to choose a rhetorical style that persuades an audience hones critical thinking skills to a very high degree. College can be (and should be, in my opinion) a time when students expand the scope of their understanding about all areas of learning, all areas of knowledge, culture, history and science.

It's sad to see students declaring a major before they even begin their university studies. I'm sure many of them do so because higher education is exorbitantly expensive and often financially devastating. So, the student must target a career from the get-go as an assurance they can pay off their astronomically high student loans.

It's a shame to find higher education in such bad shape, and it doesn't have to be this way. We need to be improving the critical thinking skills of citizens thereby creating a more well-rounded society focused on many aspects of our cultures, not just technology or jobs in service of industries.

I had this argument with another person a few years ago, Ok this only applies to the U.K, which has started charging upwards of around £9000 a year for University education

1. University education is a privilege not a right
2. University should be paid for by the students
3. The only education Govt should supply for free is up to A-level


There are too many universities offering mediocre courses, some of them are no more than jumped up technology colleges.

As for the Un-named student on the radio, protesting that University education is a basic human right...... Well, no. It isn't actually.

the thing is within the 'students' we have a demographic that has grown up under the illusions that everything is a right, which should be paid for by everyone else.

University was once for those of a high intellect with the maturity to want to further their education.

As a taxpayer, why should I pay for somebody to take a junk degree in "80's pop music" or "Media"

last Easter we were on the beach and a girl sat next to use heard my wife and kids talking in English so she started talking to my wife. She is from Kentucky and she was taking a semester away in Cork and in Spain on holiday. I asked her about the high cost of uni and she said her's is basically free. She did two years at a local junior university living at home and got top marks at a cost of a couple of thousand usd. Due to the top marks she got a scholarship to a local uni including the trip to Ireland. Had she not got the scholarship it would have cost several thousand usd and not the 100,000 you hear about. She said lots of here friends wanted the uni experience, going away for four years and not working and they would rack up 100,000 in costs.

She is doing a degree in 'communications' and thought she would be able to get a job, just not close to home. She was amazed that when she said Kentucky i thought of horse racing and not chicken!

Dano1977 wrote:

I had this argument with another person a few years ago, Ok this only applies to the U.K, which has started charging upwards of around £9000 a year for University education



As a taxpayer, why should I pay for somebody to take a junk degree in "80's pop music" or "Media"

No such major for "80's pop music". Perhaps a class if they are studying music.

"Media" is not very specific. Please explain. Public Relations? Journalism? Communications Technology?

mbmbos wrote:

The idea that an English class, for example, is unnecessary or a waste of one's time is uninformed, foolish. The much maligned English composition class, for all its naysayers, may be one of the most important classes a student can attend. Learning to formulate an argument, support it with reason and fact and to choose a rhetorical style that persuades an audience hones critical thinking skills to a very high degree. College can be (and should be, in my opinion) a time when students expand the scope of their understanding about all areas of learning, all areas of knowledge, culture, history and science.

To a degree, I agree. Literacy, written fluency, and organization of thoughts is an important skill. There is, however, the matter of "when is it enough?" By the time I was a junior in college, I'm pretty sure I had a good handle on the English language and yet someone thought it wasn't enough. Moreover, the very first thing they said in my scientific writing course was: "Forget everything you learned in English class." Well, gee, thanks.

I have the same complaints about some math classes I had to take. In high school, I was routinely given 10-20 calculus problems per night. It took five days a week for an entire school year to teach me derivatives and integrals.

In college, my calculus class started with integrals and went through differential equations, roughly the same amount of information as in AP Calculus...in ten weeks at no more than 15 homework problems per week.

There is way too much busywork being assigned to students in high schools, and some colleges continue the pattern. Fortunately, my alma mater was not one of them.

mbmbos wrote:

The notion that one goes to college strictly to earn a trade is shallow and dangerous. .

and... isn´t "just" learning a trade what vocational training is for?

best regards
Thomas

DocLightning wrote:

In college, my calculus class started with integrals and went through differential equations, roughly the same amount of information as in AP Calculus...in ten weeks at no more than 15 homework problems per week.

There is way too much busywork being assigned to students in high schools, and some colleges continue the pattern. Fortunately, my alma mater was not one of them.

My high school AP calculus class used a version of a book that we made it to the end of. I tested high enough on the AP test to opt out of Calc 1 in college. When I got to college i discovered that Calc 1,2 and 3 were all taught with the newer version of the same book that I had already completed. I slept through Calc 2 and 3 in college. However this was unfortunate for me as I think I really needed to be challenged earlier on in college to make up for some harder thermo classes.

casinterest wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

I had this argument with another person a few years ago, Ok this only applies to the U.K, which has started charging upwards of around £9000 a year for University education



As a taxpayer, why should I pay for somebody to take a junk degree in "80's pop music" or "Media"

No such major for "80's pop music". Perhaps a class if they are studying music.

"Media" is not very specific. Please explain. Public Relations? Journalism? Communications Technology?

Sarcastic = marked by or given to using irony in order to mock or convey contempt.

Dano1977 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

I had this argument with another person a few years ago, Ok this only applies to the U.K, which has started charging upwards of around £9000 a year for University education



As a taxpayer, why should I pay for somebody to take a junk degree in "80's pop music" or "Media"

No such major for "80's pop music". Perhaps a class if they are studying music.

"Media" is not very specific. Please explain. Public Relations? Journalism? Communications Technology?

Sarcastic = marked by or given to using irony in order to mock or convey contempt.

Relevance? You have none.

For some jobs a 4 yr degree is a requirement or at least puts one ahead of others that don't have one. The key being a 4 year "degree", doesn't matter what specific degree it is, basket weaving will let you check that box as a well as engineering degrees

tommy1808 wrote:

mbmbos wrote:

The notion that one goes to college strictly to earn a trade is shallow and dangerous. .

and... isn´t "just" learning a trade what vocational training is for?

best regards
Thomas

Yes, and those who just want vocational training should attend a vocational school, not university.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

i got a degree in Accounting, back in the day. i was forced to take courses in western civilizations and music. These courses open my mind to a new world or old world.
...
Nobody can take that knowledge away from me. I am thankful, that i was forced to take these classes ....

In today's world we see in a much more extreme form what happens when
you can actively decide to live in a filter bubble and make it stick.
( be that bubbles demarcated by religious or scientific "neuroticities".)

"studium generale" is a desirable thing.
Same for common education in schools.

My engineering degree (which was already a 5-year degree) required me to take 15 credit hours in socio-humanistic studies, in addition to a full year of Spanish and two years of English. Luckily, I took the AP tests and skipped my year of Spanish and the first year of English. I landed in AP English which was really a literature course. I enjoyed it, but I could have done without, especially with chemistry, precal, and other courses.

The socio-humanistic courses I took rather early to get them out of the way so I was limited in the options. I took Intro to Social Sciences 1-2, History of Puerto Rico 1-2, and conversational French 1. Had I waited until later I would have gone for a full French minor (would have been the 4 conversational French courses and a French grammatical course).

Did I like the courses? YES! The professors made them worthwhile. Did I WANT to take the courses in the first place? Absolutely not (except conversational French). Have they helped? Maybe just the social sciences course, because whenever someone accuses another of being communist/socialist, I know what the term is instead of repeating it. I'd say it allowed me to make an informed decision when I chose Clinton over Sanders (i.e. I recognized the pitfall of calling yourself socialist).

I do think, however, that if as an engineering student I was required to take 15 socio-humanistics plus 18 language credits (6 Spanish and 12 in English), it is only to be expected that an art student be required to take the same amount in science and math: 6 math credit hours and 18 in general sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics). The "well-rounded" principle should apply to everyone, not just the STEM students.

A liberal arts student will complain that they've never used Pythagoras's Theorem in daily life (not have I for that matter) and that they shouldn't take math, yet they don't seem as happy when I tell them that I have never had a need to interpret Shakespeare's works in my work so I don't see why I have to take literature...especially as a person from a place where English is just a second language (I have the same argument for Spanish, just using Cervantes).

casinterest wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

No such major for "80's pop music". Perhaps a class if they are studying music.

"Media" is not very specific. Please explain. Public Relations? Journalism? Communications Technology?

Sarcastic = marked by or given to using irony in order to mock or convey contempt.

Relevance? You have none.

Whoooosh

That was you missing the point.

I was being Sarcastic, I know there are no such degrees as "80's Pop Music" and "Media" encompasses many varied aspects.

Dano1977(BA Hons)

einsteinboricua wrote:

I do think, however, that if as an engineering student I was required to take 15 socio-humanistics plus 18 language credits (6 Spanish and 12 in English), it is only to be expected that an art student be required to take the same amount in science and math: 6 math credit hours and 18 in general sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics). The "well-rounded" principle should apply to everyone, not just the STEM students.

A liberal arts student will complain that they've never used Pythagoras's Theorem in daily life (not have I for that matter) and that they shouldn't take math, yet they don't seem as happy when I tell them that I have never had a need to interpret Shakespeare's works in my work so I don't see why I have to take literature...especially as a person from a place where English is just a second language (I have the same argument for Spanish, just using Cervantes).

THIS. ALL. OF. THIS.

I'm sick and tired of the double standard whereby STEM students are not well-rounded unless they do most of a humanities minor, but humanities students need one science class.

DocLightning wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

I do think, however, that if as an engineering student I was required to take 15 socio-humanistics plus 18 language credits (6 Spanish and 12 in English), it is only to be expected that an art student be required to take the same amount in science and math: 6 math credit hours and 18 in general sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics). The "well-rounded" principle should apply to everyone, not just the STEM students.

A liberal arts student will complain that they've never used Pythagoras's Theorem in daily life (not have I for that matter) and that they shouldn't take math, yet they don't seem as happy when I tell them that I have never had a need to interpret Shakespeare's works in my work so I don't see why I have to take literature...especially as a person from a place where English is just a second language (I have the same argument for Spanish, just using Cervantes).

THIS. ALL. OF. THIS.

I'm sick and tired of the double standard whereby STEM students are not well-rounded unless they do most of a humanities minor, but humanities students need one science class.

Guys, stop! You do realize all the money you are putting at risk for all the colleges and universities, don't you? I mean insisting that people take math and science? That means having to hire more expensive teachers and professors (yes, English and writing and arts teachers do get paid less than STEM educators and profs. I know, it is so unfair).

Plus it would mean fewer students because the classes are HARD and require mathy things and stuff. And people don't like that!

It is all about

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Guys, stop! You do realize all the money you are putting at risk for all the colleges and universities, don't you? I mean insisting that people take math and science? That means having to hire more expensive teachers and professors (yes, English and writing and arts teachers do get paid less than STEM educators and profs. I know, it is so unfair).

Heavens to Betsy!!! I recant! I recant!

(But it still goes around.)

Flighty wrote:

zckls04 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

A music degree is fine, if you can wait tables and earn the tuition money. It won't repay a $200,000 loan.

It'll repay a $20k loan, which is what a music degree at a public university would actually cost. And if it's not a public university, how do you propose to regulate it?

Another thing to remember is that not every job requires a degree of the type you deem worthwhile. If we're now saying that only rich people should be allowed to do artistic degrees, then presumably there's going to be a huge increase in the number of STEM graduates. That means lower wages for those graduates, greater unemployment, and loss in skills in areas which actually need liberal arts degrees, few though they may be.

I think personally that the federal government should not be in the business of loaning money at all. I'd prefer a means-tested grant system.

How to "regulate?" You answered it. I am just saying stop federal funding of student loans and grants. Am I so mean to suggest "only rich people should be allowed to do artistic degrees..." It's not me saying that! It is their pocketbooks! They use the same system at Tiffany's! If you don't have the money then get lost!

In the past, each term, you needed to appear at the College Bursar's office with a check, or cash, amounting to that term's tuition money. My grandfather said he would stand in line to pay for my mother's tuition, which he did, in full (having earned it with great effort). Ahead of him would be parents saying "gee I just don't have the tuition money this week.." And students were kicked out! People didn't have this "drinking straw to the federal treasury." It was real money. It governed the cost and the value of the degrees.

People have this sleazy attitude now that the government will pay for everything. That's not a morally coherent viewpoint. It is just squalor of the mind.

Without an unlimited budget, and perhaps by limiting international students' visits to temporary, tuition cost will fall, and it will be possible to work hard and pay for a degree again. Or, maybe we can have a government funded university system for high IQ people, like they do in other countries. Middle and low IQ people can stay at the high school degree level. That's actually possible to fund. Our current regime and rate of cost increase is not possible to fund.

The US government could easily afford to make post secondary education to a public college or university if they actually did it. There is plenty of money available but the priority simply isn't there, those in Washington simply choose to spend money in other ways.

There have been many studies to show that everyone in the US could easily have their post secondary education paid for for the fraction of the money that was wasted in Iraq.

Also most people know that when the government pays for service that it isn't free, taxes are paying for it. People in the United States seem to be mad when it is used for education and health care but don't bat an eye when it is spend on defense and tax cuts.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

i got a degree in Accounting, back in the day. i was forced to take courses in western civilizations and music. These courses open my mind to a new world or old world.



Nobody can take that knowledge away from me. I am thankful, that i was forced to take these classes because my accounting degree, was a total waste of money. I worked 6 months for federal reserve auditing banks. It was so boring, i hated going to work each day. So i quit and found a job that i actually liked.

my degree is pretty much obsolete, so much has changed. The courses i took in history and music has changed me. I love going to the opera, or classical concert. My parents listen to country music, so this was wonderful awaking for me. Having a education is so much more than just being able to make money. It makes me sad when people think people should only be educated so that they can make more money. While money is important, it's not everything.

I can very much identify with your story. I had no clue what I wanted to major in when I enrolled in college, still really didn't even by the end of the first year. I of course, had been programmed by my parents and school administrators to believe go to college, no matter what. Eventually, I gravitated towards marketing as a major, and got my BA in 4 years. In the first 6 months post graduation, I looked for a few jobs in the field only to discover I wanted nothing to do with marketing. Took two years of unemployment mixed with odd jobs here and there to discover the airline business was my career calling card. Position I'm in now doesn't require a degree (though having one probably aided in my employability). Do I regret going to college? Absolutely not! Met great friends, had meaningful life experiences, and as far as my choice of major....well, I can remember more lively invigorating discussions in some of my non-business courses, and there's no substitute for that.

I know it's a comforting thought to see college students maximize the value of their experience, but there's no good way of doing it, when such a large population of students who don't know what or why they are at college for exist.

It is not about money, it is about country's future.

It is not uncommon to have arts and language as part of the curriculum at the undergrad level including with so-called STEM majors. Only Masters and Doctorates need to be exclusive.

STEM became a buzz word only recently, 20 years back no one cared about STEM. One of my colleagues explained this as a side effect of the post-WWII economic boom. Everyone got a job, so higher education became optional almost unnecessary, even more with science and technology.

StarAC17 wrote:

The US government could easily afford to make post secondary education to a public college or university if they actually did it. There is plenty of money available but the priority simply isn't there, those in Washington simply choose to spend money in other ways.

There have been many studies to show that everyone in the US could easily have their post secondary education paid for for the fraction of the money that was wasted in Iraq.

Also most people know that when the government pays for service that it isn't free, taxes are paying for it. People in the United States seem to be mad when it is used for education and health care but don't bat an eye when it is spend on defense and tax cuts.

As a US taxpayer, I don't care if the money is invested in AFFORDABLE education. AFFORDABLE, not free. There are two lessons to be learned from this:
1. Nothing is ever free. Someone/something else is making it affordable at their expense.
2. You still have to work towards your goals. Help goes a long way, but only goes so far; effort put into it is what gets you over the finish line.

My main gripe is wondering who stands to benefit and how. Are we really gonna invest money in college so that someone goes out to study "15th Century Women's Role in English Literature" or would we rather see that money invested in someone who will become a doctor? Are we willing to support a student and have them switch majors 3-4 times because they still don't know what they want in life and be a career student for over 10 years or do we cap the amount per lifetime (or per every 10 years)?

I've seen both. In my 6.5 years of college (it took long due to a 5-year curriculum plus a minor, if anyone was curious), I saw the engineer-turned-sociology-turned-psychology students, the political science students in their 8th year of class and still not halfway finished, and the social justice warriors demanding more services without wanting to pony up a nickel more.

Heck, you guys may remember PHX787. Studied sociology. Complained about not finding a job. Is that the kind of student we want to benefit or do we invest in the student who is on the way to becoming a doctor or an engineer or a pilot?

I'd rather see a decent ROI (or even the promise of it) as opposed to a free-for-all approach. I'm not saying that the world does not need arts; there's certainly room for it. But those who choose to go for it do so understanding that the degree in flower basket weaving won't land you a 6-figure salary no matter how detailed those baskets are, and that flower basket weaving adds little value to the modern world (flower basket weaving doesn't build roads, airplanes or boats; it doesn't cure a patient from cancer, and it does not keep operations running at an organization).

StarAC17 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

zckls04 wrote:

It'll repay a $20k loan, which is what a music degree at a public university would actually cost. And if it's not a public university, how do you propose to regulate it?

Another thing to remember is that not every job requires a degree of the type you deem worthwhile. If we're now saying that only rich people should be allowed to do artistic degrees, then presumably there's going to be a huge increase in the number of STEM graduates. That means lower wages for those graduates, greater unemployment, and loss in skills in areas which actually need liberal arts degrees, few though they may be.

I think personally that the federal government should not be in the business of loaning money at all. I'd prefer a means-tested grant system.

How to "regulate?" You answered it. I am just saying stop federal funding of student loans and grants. Am I so mean to suggest "only rich people should be allowed to do artistic degrees..." It's not me saying that! It is their pocketbooks! They use the same system at Tiffany's! If you don't have the money then get lost!

In the past, each term, you needed to appear at the College Bursar's office with a check, or cash, amounting to that term's tuition money. My grandfather said he would stand in line to pay for my mother's tuition, which he did, in full (having earned it with great effort). Ahead of him would be parents saying "gee I just don't have the tuition money this week.." And students were kicked out! People didn't have this "drinking straw to the federal treasury." It was real money. It governed the cost and the value of the degrees.

People have this sleazy attitude now that the government will pay for everything. That's not a morally coherent viewpoint. It is just squalor of the mind.

Without an unlimited budget, and perhaps by limiting international students' visits to temporary, tuition cost will fall, and it will be possible to work hard and pay for a degree again. Or, maybe we can have a government funded university system for high IQ people, like they do in other countries. Middle and low IQ people can stay at the high school degree level. That's actually possible to fund. Our current regime and rate of cost increase is not possible to fund.

The US government could easily afford to make post secondary education to a public college or university if they actually did it. There is plenty of money available but the priority simply isn't there, those in Washington simply choose to spend money in other ways.

There have been many studies to show that everyone in the US could easily have their post secondary education paid for for the fraction of the money that was wasted in Iraq.

Also most people know that when the government pays for service that it isn't free, taxes are paying for it. People in the United States seem to be mad when it is used for education and health care but don't bat an eye when it is spend on defense and tax cuts.

Some American's not all. giving tax cuts when we have so many wars going only happens when a republican is in office.

einsteinboricua wrote:

As a US taxpayer, I don't care if the money is invested in AFFORDABLE education. AFFORDABLE, not free.

Since you need to have a place to live, buy books and eat, it is never "free" in any conventional sense.

There are two lessons to be learned from this:
1. Nothing is ever free. Someone/something else is making it affordable at their expense.
2. You still have to work towards your goals. Help goes a long way, but only goes so far; effort put into it is what gets you over the finish line.

The student isn´t paying for school, even if he is writing the checks. His future employers, and therefore the customers are paying for it anyways. Thanks to student loans, including interest, which produces nothing and a risk premium, that also pays nothing, they even pay more than just the cost. Having education come with an up-front price tag only discourages people to try and get a degree, a pretty good way to keep talent down and unavailable for the economy.
Having education paid out of taxes is effective, both in making good use of the available human resources and in terms of being over all cheaper, since there is no compound interest on education cost.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Since you need to have a place to live, buy books and eat, it is never "free" in any conventional sense.

Give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk.

tommy1808 wrote:

The student isn´t paying for school, even if he is writing the checks. His future employers, and therefore the customers are paying for it anyways. Thanks to student loans, including interest, which produces nothing and a risk premium, that also pays nothing, they even pay more than just the cost. Having education come with an up-front price tag only discourages people to try and get a degree, a pretty good way to keep talent down and unavailable for the economy.
Having education paid out of taxes is effective, both in making good use of the available human resources and in terms of being over all cheaper, since there is no compound interest on education cost.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. There may be a mentality that "I got this without paying a cent; why should I pay higher taxes when I start working?". It's the "I got mine; screw you" mentality that we should strive to avoid.

I'm not saying that a student should bear all the costs, but I don't think it's a bad thing to have students do community service or something that lets them know that while they pay little to nothing (because it's the government carrying the bulk of it), they have to put their fair share. THAT is why I disagreed with Bernie Sanders's platform.

"Free college", "Free healthcare"...no...it's not "free". I have to pay higher taxes on that and if that's the case, I want a proper plan in place.

and i have to pay higher taxes for all these wars, as well as finance the wealthy tax cuts. But hey, life isn't fair. US. three branches of government has managed to create an oligarchy
I'd take Bernie in a heart beat.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I'd rather see a decent ROI (or even the promise of it) as opposed to a free-for-all approach. I'm not saying that the world does not need arts; there's certainly room for it. But those who choose to go for it do so understanding that the degree in flower basket weaving won't land you a 6-figure salary no matter how detailed those baskets are, and that flower basket weaving adds little value to the modern world (flower basket weaving doesn't build roads, airplanes or boats; it doesn't cure a patient from cancer, and it does not keep operations running at an organization).

Somehow, I doubt that you have really considered the millions of jobs that exist, around the world, in basket weaving/manufacturing, design, and trade.

I did manage to find what seemed to me to be a simplistic course "BS in Basket Weaving" at a university in Texas. I doubt that it was designed to prepare people for a life in the basket trade.

But I can easily imagine worthwhile courses in weaving many kinds of materials used to produce baskets, furniture, clothing, home furnishings and much more. I can also imagine degree programs built around and for weaving industries that include design, product development, manufacturing, marketing and international trade.

Most of the world (job wise) is not involved in STEM activity, narrowly defined, even though, for example, basket weaving industries can at times involve maths and chemistry.

Regarding totally wasteful assets, UNLV has a university studies program for it's athletes.

Regarding Frank Antenori the ex-Green Beret and former member of the Arizona legislature should have paid more attention in his writing/reading course. Besides being an unpopular legislator here in Arizona got busted for illegally entering a military base for hunting wildlife. Oh yea, he ran for Gabby Gifford seat when she resigned and finished 3rd in the Republican primary.

Arizona State University reported that it's liberal arts majors were in "hot" demand this past year with the high tech firms. Needed people around that lived a real life.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I'd rather see a decent ROI (or even the promise of it) as opposed to a free-for-all approach. I'm not saying that the world does not need arts; there's certainly room for it. But those who choose to go for it do so understanding that the degree in flower basket weaving won't land you a 6-figure salary no matter how detailed those baskets are, and that flower basket weaving adds little value to the modern world (flower basket weaving doesn't build roads, airplanes or boats; it doesn't cure a patient from cancer, and it does not keep operations running at an organization).

BOOM.

And here's one of the reasons for our out-of-control costs for university/college studies; thanks to well-intended government intervention, we now permit 17 and 18 year olds to take out loans for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on studies that have a low ROIC, while simultaneously asking for zero skin in the game in the form of collateral against those loans.

So, yes, I believe while arts studies are important, it's equally important for the person pursuing them to understand there's a relatively low likelihood of their degree leading to a career path that could also be undertaken without that expensive degree in the first place. Studies have also shown that students who work full or even part time while attending college perform better in the classroom, and attaching some sort of employment expectation or even volunteer work requirement as a condition to being granted a student loan would help reduce default rates that raise costs for everyone.

Basically, the laws of supply and demand have been artificially removed from the pursuit of higher education, causing runaway inflation in the costs of education, and encouraging bloated, inefficient systems for providing it.

I've got two sons, and both of them will be expected to work their butts off during school to get scholarships, as well as applying for every scholarship under the sun so they can attend whatever school they wish to attend debt free. And, I'll also be sure to point out the value of vocational training, if that's where their interests lie, as I can't think of a single plumber, electrician, or other skilled tradesman that will perform work for anything less than a dollar a minute. There's always demand in those fields, and a hard-working tradesman can make a very, very good living without racking up immense student loan debt to do so.

BobPatterson wrote:

Somehow, I doubt that you have really considered the millions of jobs that exist, around the world, in basket weaving/manufacturing, design, and trade.

I did manage to find what seemed to me to be a simplistic course "BS in Basket Weaving" at a university in Texas. I doubt that it was designed to prepare people for a life in the basket trade.

But I can easily imagine worthwhile courses in weaving many kinds of materials used to produce baskets, furniture, clothing, home furnishings and much more. I can also imagine degree programs built around and for weaving industries that include design, product development, manufacturing, marketing and international trade.

Most of the world (job wise) is not involved in STEM activity, narrowly defined, even though, for example, basket weaving industries can at times involve maths and chemistry.

When Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and Embraer, the ME3, remaining US legacy carriers, all their suppliers, the ATC units, and their employees require "flower basket weaving" in order to work, let me know.

If you noticed, I don't rule out that society could benefit from someone who majored in flower basket weaving (and you've been here long enough to know that the term is used here in a.net to refer to a liberal arts degree), but the demand is so low and expectations from the student are so high that it creates unhappy scenarios and an entitled mentality. And if college will be paid for by the tax payers, I want it invested in something that adds value to society. A liberal arts degree, unfortunately, will not have the same value as a STEM degree (only in very rare cases and it will usually require a higher degree (psychology with an MBA focused on human resources or sociology with a Juris Doctor, for example).

Before automation, actual flower basket weaving could serve many purposes, from pattern recognition to pattern design to applications in other areas (furniture for example). Automation has taken care of that; you only need a graphic designer with experience with the Adobe Suite (or similar) and you have weaned yourself from an actual flower basket weaver. But let's assume there is an opening for flower basket weaver. How much do you think that person's salary will be? Do they get an office? Remote assignments? Maybe with a prestigious firm who only needs one flower basket weaver as a consultant or design lead. Is it society's fault that flower basket weaving is not valued as high or is it the person's fault for not understanding or refusing to accept that following their passion comes with a hefty tradeoff?

einsteinboricua wrote:

If you noticed, I don't rule out that society could benefit from someone who majored in flower basket weaving (and you've been here long enough to know that the term is used here in a.net to refer to a liberal arts degree), ........

Sorry, but I had no idea that the term "flower basket weaving" was a disparaging synonym for "liberal arts major". Color me dumb.

You might benefit from a decent course in written communication (i.e. writing for comprehension).

Millions of teachers (good ones, too) were liberal arts majors.

Unless they are expected to teach STEM subjects they have little need for college level STEM courses.

The best, most effective teacher that I had in high school taught my class in geometry. She had no need to know calculus to do that.