Everyone has a degree. Good or bad?

[Garrison0fMars]

Well, that's the question, isn't it?

"Expanding university education" doesn't mean much if you don't benefit from the education. There's a fairly direct economic benefit from having a degree, but that primarily derives from scarcity-value and is therefore self-limiting (and we're seeing the limits now, at least in the US). There's also an indirect quality of life benefit from the "education" itself, but this assumes that you actually get (and value) the "education."

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I don't really think the problem though is the fact that university education is now more available for everyone in society, but rather the pressure for everyone to go there and earn a generic BA. Indeed BA's use to be worth a lot more than they are now in the US, now at best you get a management job at a department store. I think people should be introduced to alternatives to universities, such as community colleges, trade schools, and so forth, and have those be "acceptable" forms of education, rather than the stigma they carry at large in society. After all, I know people who have technical associates from local community colleges, and currently have rather decent (living wage) employment, and I know some who have BAs from universities, and work at the Taco Bell.

That's not to say that I agree with our self-proclaimed "educational fascist"; I like the idea that everyone in society should be educated to the point they can think critically, understand foreign cultures, and recognize the benefits of deferred gratification, all of which are supposed to be part of a "college education." If you can get those benefits from a degree in philosophy or literature, great. Not everyone needs to be a chemist (and if everyone was a chemist, no one could afford to work that job).

I agree there. Education is (should) be more than just cranking out job skills, but fostering critical thought, and other aspects of "liberal" arts.

 

[drkitten]

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I don't really think the problem though is the fact that university education is now more available for everyone in society, but rather the pressure for everyone to go there and earn a generic BA.

I don't think that's a problem. If you agree that education is in and of itself a good thing, then we should indeed encourage people to get education, in the same way that we encourage people to eat right and exercise. A gym membership or a diet full of locally produced fresh vegetables may not make sense from an economic standpoint, but from a quality of life standpoint I think it's very sensible indeed.

The problem is that a lot of people are being sold generic BAs on false pretenses; they are after not the education, but the money that used to be associated with having that level of education.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Schools teach, test, and certify. Let us consider these in order:

1. It is fraud to charge for the instruction of a student who does not need help. A school which bills taxpayers and students for the instruction of a student who does not need help commits a fraud. A student who inflicts upon taxpayers a bill for knowledge s/he could have acquired at Borders is complicit in a fraud.

2. The cost to grade exams is considerably less than the cost to provide three hours of instructional time per week, 32 weeks per year.

3. It is a conflict of interest for teachers and schools to grade their own students.

The US government could save taxpayers billions per year if it required the four post-secondary colleges under its control to make available a syllabus for a liberal arts, social science, or Math curriculum to anyone who wishes to enroll, and to license Sylvan Learning Centers and the University of Phoenix to proctor examinations. Let competition between independent testing agencies drive the cost of a degree down to the cost of books and of grading exams.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

The problem is that a lot of people are being sold generic BAs on false pretenses; they are after not the education, but the money that used to be associated with having that level of education.

Sure, but I think that's only half of it. We should stop selling false pretenses on generic BAs, but it's also important to give people the direction towards an education with real tangible job skills, if they want it that is. The people who are not intellectually inclined for example shouldn't be pressured into getting a BA, that to me just seems a general waste of time. The ones that are though should still be made to know they're going to need something else to secure better job prospects.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

A student who inflicts upon taxpayers a bill for knowledge s/he could have acquired at Borders is complicit in a fraud.

Fraud? Isn't that a bit overboard? Can you prove you can obtain the same quality and level of training at "Borders", then from a university? Are you suggesting I can become an engineer by just reading books? Maybe some could, but not everyone learns the same, and I believe it's actually been quantified into there learning types, so I doubt even if some could learn from that style, all could.

S government could save taxpayers billions per year if it required the four post-secondary colleges under its control to make available a syllabus for a liberal arts, social science, or Math curriculum to anyone who wishes to enroll, and to license Sylvan Learning Centers and the University of Phoenix to proctor examinations. Let competition between independent testing agencies drive the cost of a degree down to the cost of books and of grading exams.

If you're trying to save the taxpayers money, I seriously doubt using the "University of Phoenix" is the best route to do it. They're one of the highest recipients of federal student aid (Pell Grants, Stanford loans, etc.) with some of the most terrible end results (very low graduation rates). They in general cost the taxpayer MORE than public schools do.

Also, why did you ignore my earlier questions?

 

[drkitten]

Sure, but I think that's only half of it. We should stop selling false pretenses on generic BAs, but it's also important to give people the direction towards an education with real tangible job skills, if they want it that is. The people who are not intellectually inclined for example shouldn't be pressured into getting a BA, that to me just seems a general waste of time. The ones that are though should still be made to know they're going to need something else to secure better job prospects.

There are several problems with this. One of the most important is that there is, in theory at least, no conflict between trade education and liberal arts education -- there's no reason a cook can't speak French, a policeman can't read Aquinas, or a plumber can't appreciate pre-Raph paintings.

The other is that, of course, people do get jobs in liberal arts disciplines and many of them find those jobs fulfilling. They just don't pay particularly well -- but that's been a problem with the local vicar for centuries, and people have still gone into the Church.

And the third is that we have no idea what are and aren't jobs with good prospects -- predicting the future is at best murky, and anyone who trusts the BLS's ten year predictions is a fool.

As a particular example, "higher education" has been expected to become a growth area for the past thirty or so years; "everyone knows" that the professoriate is on the brink of a mass retirement. The problem is that they've been "on the brink" of a mass retirement for thirty-odd years, and that while everyone's waiting for a whole cohort of senior faculty to resign, the actual reality on the ground is that universities are cutting back staff and hiring non-tenured gypsy faculty to replace them.

But that's true for many other jobs; doctors are another field expecting to grow, when the reality on the ground is that nurse-practitioners and physicians' assistants are growing much faster than physicians; the business model is changing faster than medical schools can produce physicians, and there's a good chance that someone entering college this fall to become a doctor may find all of the good jobs taken by nurses by the time she gets her M.D. Or we may find that there is a reason for all that time in medical school as the idea of nurse-practitioner falls out of favor. No one knows.

At the same time, I also remember all of these people in the late 90s and early 00s that were convinced that computer science was a degree/job with great prospects, especially with all the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs going on, but they'd never be able to outsource computer programmers. Of course, programming has been among the hardest hit sectors by outsourcing precisely because you can hack Javascript from literally anywhere in the world, and the Russians and Indians do. And don't get me start about the "management consultants" that were going to tell everyone how to run their businesses.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

There are several problems with this. One of the most important is that there is, in theory at least, no conflict between trade education and liberal arts education -- there's no reason a cook can't speak French, a policeman can't read Aquinas, or a plumber can't appreciate pre-Raph paintings.

I never said they couldn't, or shouldn't pursue both. However, if they do not any inclination to, I don't really see why they should. Education can make you more knowledgeable, but it can't cure apathy. That was my point.

The other is that, of course, people do get jobs in liberal arts disciplines and many of them find those jobs fulfilling. They just don't pay particularly well -- but that's been a problem with the local vicar for centuries, and people have still gone into the Church.

Sure, but most still have the mindset they can safety obtain a mid level job with a generic BA alone, I was only addressing that crowd.

And the third is that we have no idea what are and aren't jobs with good prospects -- predicting the future is at best murky, and anyone who trusts the BLS's ten year predictions is a fool.

I never implied anything of the sort. Not sure why you're bringing that up.

But that's true for many other jobs; doctors are another field expecting to grow, when the reality on the ground is that nurse-practitioners and physicians' assistants are growing much faster than physicians; the business model is changing faster than medical schools can produce physicians, and there's a good chance that someone entering college this fall to become a doctor may find all of the good jobs taken by nurses by the time she gets her M.D. Or we may find that there is a reason for all that time in medical school as the idea of nurse-practitioner falls out of favor. No one knows.

Yup, PAs and NPs, for a variety of reasons are outpacing MD growth, at least within primary care. Whether they'll nearly outright replace MDs in primary care though, is an open question. We'll see.

 

[drkitten]

I never implied anything of the sort. Not sure why you're bringing that up.

Because you suggested that people who go to college should be steered into "an education with real tangible job skills" in order to "secure better job prospects." Someone wants to go to school and study linguistics, for example, and we should discourage them from doing that an instead study medicine, because there's real tangible job skills in an MD that there isn't in linguistics.

Except:

Yup, PAs and NPs, for a variety of reasons are outpacing MD growth, at least within primary care. Whether they'll nearly outright replace MDs in primary care though, is an open question. We'll see.

... and exactly the opposite is true for linguistics; the demand for linguists greatly exceeds the supply, because no one saw the Google revolution coming or the idea that we might be able to use corpus linguistics to drive better business practices.

Of course, this is only going to be a short-term boom, because people are now realizing that there's demand for linguistics and the linguistics departments are seeing a nice boost in enrollment, which means they'll produce an oversupply in the next ten years or so and we'll be back to the status quo. I expect the boom after this one to be in literature scholars who find themselves suddenly in demand to help computer-aided "distance learning," supporting things like automatic editing and grading of on-line resources, distance education, and whatnot -- businesses will suddenly realize that they've got all this data on-line and no way of making a compelling case out of it, and they'll find they need good old-fashioned rhetoricians.

Unless you can predict the next boom -- or the boom after that one, for that matter -- you'll simply be channelling people to get a degree in four years in a field that's hot today. How about letting people get a degree in what they like and enjoy? If it turns out that I'm right that the CS boom is over, and the linguistics boom is cooling, and the literature boom is on the horizon,.... great. But if not, no one went into literature because they thought they could make money at it. They went into it because they like literature studies.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Because you suggested that people who go to college should be steered into "an education with real tangible job skills" in order to "secure better job prospects." Someone wants to go to school and study linguistics, for example, and we should discourage them from doing that an instead study medicine, because there's real tangible job skills in an MD that there isn't in linguistics.

Sure, but that doesn't at all negate the liberal arts. I did however say, for people who don't care at all about the liberal arts, they probably shouldn't pursue them.

Unless you can predict the next boom -- or the boom after that one, for that matter -- you'll simply be channelling people to get a degree in four years in a field that's hot today.

True enough. It's all a gamble really, navigating the trends can be bumpy, and sometimes you lose. The profession I'm gunning for may very well stink up in the next 5-10 years, we'll see. Still, it doesn't mean I wouldn't try to pursue an education that would lead to better job prospects in the future, and I am skeptical all BLS statistics, and other likewise ones end up false. Keep in mind also, the average bachelor's degree costs a student at least a 5 figure debt, so I don't think it's unreasonable to call for caution in picking one's preferred degree.

How about letting people get a degree in what they like and enjoy?

Who's stopping them? I'm not. If you want to get an BA in "Greek Mythology", and potentially 30,000 $ in the hole because of it, be my guest.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Fraud? Isn't that a bit overboard?

No.

Can you prove you can obtain the same quality and level of training at "Borders", then from a university?

Seems to me the burden of proof properly belongs on the people who would use the State's coercive power to impose taxes in support of K-PhD schooling and to limit employment opportunities to people with certificates granted by $300 per hour university faculty.

Are you suggesting I can become an engineer by just reading books? Maybe some could, but not everyone learns the same, and I believe it's actually been quantified into there learning types, so I doubt even if some could learn from that style, all could.

There is no magic in school. Engineering firms could train their own. Employ as office runners and hod-carriers any 12-year-old who can perform basic calculations and train promising candidates for more.

The practical barrier is that employees could walk after training, and firms might not recoup their investment. Changes in employment contract law could address this.

If you're trying to save the taxpayers money, I seriously doubt using the "University of Phoenix" is the best route to do it. They're one of the highest recipients of federal student aid (Pell Grants, Stanford loans, etc.) with some of the most terrible end results (very low graduation rates). They in general cost the taxpayer MORE than public schools do.

My proposal only requires that independent agencies proctor and grade exams. Competition between proctoring agencies would set prices. It has to be cheaper than a semester's worth of faculty time, even if you're not counting the opportunity cost of the student's time.

Also, why did you ignore my earlier questions?

Seemed to me you answered them yourself.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Seems to me the burden of proof properly belongs on the people who would use the State's coercive power to impose taxes in support of K-PhD schooling

Um, no? If you're proposing a new system of education altogether, isn't the burden of proof that it would work rests upon the person advocating it?

Seemed to me you answered them yourself.

No, you simply ignored them. What time period did Lawyers and Surgeons "Apprenticeship"?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If you're proposing a new system of education altogether, isn't the burden of proof that it would work rests upon the person advocating it?

Credit by exam is not new. Actuaries, Foreign Service Officers, and welders qualify by exam alone (used to, anyway. I hear that since ten years ago or so actuaries have had to have taken classes).

No, you simply ignored them. What time period did Lawyers and Surgeons "Apprenticeship"?

You can become a lawyer in California today through apprenticeship and the California bar exam, I understand. Remember "HMS Pinafore"?

When I was a lad I served a term
As office boy for an attorney's firm...

Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip
That they took me into the partnership.
And that junior partnership, I ween,
Was the only ship that I ever had seen.
But that kind of ship so suited me,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Credit by exam is not new.

Yes, it's "nothing new", but neither is herbal medicine, and yet the latter is completely ineffective. Just because it's "nothing new" doesn't make it a sound recommendation. Remember argument of antiquity...

You can become a lawyer in California today through apprenticeship and the California bar exam, I understand.

Really? I never heard this. Source?

Also, what about Surgeons, when exactly did they train under "apprenticeships"?

 

[drkitten]

Seems to me the burden of proof properly belongs on the people who would use the State's coercive power to impose taxes in support of K-PhD schooling and to limit employment opportunities to people with certificates granted by $300 per hour university faculty.

Well, that would be a burden easily met. Employment opportunities are not usually "limited" to people with certificates; they're permitted to compete freely against people without certificates. It's just that the people with the certificates win.

As an example, you don't need a degree to become a lawyer; many states offer a path to a law license through self-study and employment, usually called "reading law."

The problem is that the people who go that route fail. There's an objective measure there. According to the State of Virginia, the average bar passage rate for law students is about 67%, which is to say that 67% of the people with a J.D. are objectively qualified to practice law in Virginia. The corresponding number for autodidactic "readers" is 23%.

There is no magic in school. Engineering firms could train their own. Employ as office runners and hod-carriers any 12-year-old who can perform basic calculations and train promising candidates for more.

Well, lawyers demonstrably can't train their own.

 

[drkitten]

Really? I never heard this. Source?

And in Virginia. There's a source upthread. The problem is that the lawyers who train as apprentices tend to crash and burn at the bar exam.

Also, what about Surgeons, when exactly did they train under "apprenticeships"?

Early 19th century. John Keats, for example, trained as a surgeon's apprentice from 1810-1815. The rise of the medical school dates to the late 19th century, for example, with the establishment of the Johns Hopkins Medical School in the 1880s, or the Mayo Clinic at about the same time.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

And in Virginia. There's a source upthread. The problem is that the lawyers who train as apprentices tend to crash and burn at the bar exam.

Well I'm a bit surprised actually, I didn't even know you could do that. Though apparently is an inferior way to educate lawyers.

Early 19th century. John Keats, for example, trained as a surgeon's apprentice from 1810-1815. The rise of the medical school dates to the late 19th century, for example, with the establishment of the Johns Hopkins Medical School in the 1880s, or the Mayo Clinic at about the same time.

I figured it was centuries ago (and I think kirkpatrick was avoiding it for that very reason). I'm pretty sure such a model couldn't work with today's medicine, as back then it was far more simple (and rather ineffective).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yes, it's "nothing new", but neither is herbal medicine, and yet the latter is completely ineffective. Just because it's "nothing new" doesn't make it a sound recommendation.

Welders today qualify by exam. Actuaries working today qualified by exam. What would class time add?

Remember argument of antiquity...

No. Please expand.
(MK): "You can become a lawyer in California today through apprenticeship and the California bar exam, I understand."

Really? I never heard this. Source?

Rule 4.29,

Also, what about Surgeons, when exactly did they train under "apprenticeships"?

Into the 1800s. Government-subsidized "school" as an institution apart, is a relatively recent idea, except for indoctrination into the State priesthood (Harvard Divinity school). Not much has changed, it seems, except that we now accept "Sociology", "Political Science", "History", and "Climate Science" as substitutes for "Divinity".

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Welders today qualify by exam. Actuaries working today qualified by exam. What would class time add?

Yeah, but Welders and "Actuaries" are hardly physicians and lawyers, now are they? It's not one size fits all.

(MK): "You can become a lawyer in California today through apprenticeship and the California bar exam, I understand."Rule 4.29,

Did you read what DrKitten said above? Apparently that method of educating lawyers is in fact, an inferior method by many percentage points.

Into the 1800s.

You do realize surgery has vastly changed since the 1800s, right?

Government-subsidized "school" as an institution apart, is a relatively recent idea, except for indoctrination into the State priesthood (Harvard Divinity school). Not much has changed, it seems, except that we now accept "Sociology", "Political Science", "History", and "Climate Science" as substitutes for "Divinity".

Ah, so you're more ideologically motivated rather than expressing concern for a practical solution. That explains a few things..

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Well, that would be a burden easily met. Employment opportunities are not usually "limited" to people with certificates; they're permitted to compete freely against people without certificates. It's just that the people with the certificates win.

No. You need a license to work as an electrician or barber, fer crissake. Some states make it an offense to practice medicine without a license. I am not (here) making an objection to this, just to the policy which requires class time to obtain the license.

 

[Doubt]

Teaching hospitals used to train nurses straight from high school.

And today that would not get them very far. My mother was of the later generations of RN's trained that way. Late in her career she had to move into administration because her educational background was not strong enough to handle some of the things that nurses are expected to do now that they have BS programs in nursing. One of those skills she did not have was the math skills to figure out concentrations of medicine in a syringe. But when she started, and RN did not need to know that. Now they do. A wider education from a university would have helped her keep doing what she really wanted to do.

I myself am an engineer. I travel to different customer locations far from home to commission industrial equipment. Those engineering skills only get me half way through what I need to do. About another quarter of what I have to do I learned in those supposedly useless liberal arts classes I had to take in school. The other quarter of the skills need I learned through a much more expensive (to the American tax payer) form of supposedly unrelated training from the military.

The wide scope of an education that covers many things is better than a narrow, vocationally targeted program if you want to have the flexibility to survive in the sort of job market that is out there now. Sure, these skills can be acquired from other places. It seems rather unlikely that the average person will acquire such skills quickly or without gaps in their skill set that will cost them later.