ValueOfCollege

Another look at the value of college

2011-12-08T05:59:00.000-08:00

Here is a more nuanced piece about the myths of college. It still does not address
the difference between correlations and causation. But it does get into the problems
with averages when looking at the stats associated with the higher earnings of college grads
versus non-grads.

"Averages hide a lot of things. In this case, lots and lots of things. For example, one-quarter of workers with only some college or with associate's degrees make more than do half of those with bachelor's degrees."

Student Loans: The Next Bubble?

2011-11-06T17:23:00.000-08:00

Good question: Are college student loans the next bubble? We would of course they are the current bubble for many. Especially those that are $200k in debt, have a degree in Sociology or History and still end up working at the five and dime.

One of the better points from the article: " Nobody earns a generic "college degree." Degrees are earned from different schools, with different reputations, and in different majors with much different payoffs. What counts most, says Georgetown's Anthony Carnevale, are the courses you take and your major."

Move over Ethnomusicology - try getting a job with a degree in Puppetry

2011-11-06T07:20:00.000-08:00

A great post by Alex Tabarrok

"A few years ago, Joe Therrien, a graduate of the NYC Teaching Fellows program, was working as a full-time drama teacher at a public elementary school in New York City. Frustrated by huge class sizes, sparse resources and a disorganized bureaucracy, he set off to the University of Connecticut to get an MFA in his passion—puppetry. Three years and $35,000 in student loans later, he emerged with degree in hand, and because puppeteers aren’t exactly in high demand…he’s working at his old school as a full-time “substitute”…[earning less than he did before]."

"What astounds me is not that someone could amass $35,000 in student loans pursuing a dream of puppetry, everyone has their dreams and I do not fault Joe for his. What astounds me is that Richard Kim, the executive editor of The Nation and the author of this article, thinks that the failure of a puppeteer to find a job he loves is a good way to illustrate the “national nightmare” of the job market." Well said Alex.

How do we produce more entrepeneurs?

2011-10-23T15:50:00.000-07:00

Good piece from the New York Times about how we might produce more entrepreneurs and job creators in America.

A common sense letter about college - worth a read.

2011-10-18T19:15:00.001-07:00

Johnny takes a different approach to college

2011-09-18T18:50:00.000-07:00

I am trying to get families and young people to rethink the automatic track to college. Instead of Johnny mechanically leaving for a four year college this Fall to study Sociology, how about this for an alternative?

He combines learning with work. Johnny takes a combination of junior college classes, free on-line classes at the Khan Academy and reads like heck on a variety of subjects. And most importantly he reaches out to meet and learn from entrepreneurs, inventors, and business people - not just his college professors and classmates.

He then works hard at getting real world work experience with fast-moving entrepreneurial companies that would love to bring in Johnny’s energy, smarts, work ethic (and affordable price) into their organization. Johnny might work for free (as an intern) or offer to do some project work as an independent contractor or fixed prices that are too hard for the company to turn down. It would be great if Johnny made some money early in the process but it might be six months or so before he starts earning $20 an hour with the freedom to work flexible hours. Early on, the experience and the contacts are far more critical that the money Johnny earns. But it is important that Johnny start to develop the ability to communicate his value, negotiate pay, ask for a raise and be searching for opportunities where he will both learn and earn.

All the while Johnny is fervently networking, looking for other opportunities, learning, asking questions and developing a reputation for getting things done well and a great attitude.

But back to Johnny’s “education”. It clearly matters what kind of things Johnny initially has an interest in, and where he perceives a good fit for his services and personality as compared to the real job market. But consider that Johnny has only had a chance to experience a very small part of the world, so he shouldn’t narrow it down too early in life.

But let’s say he is interested in designing new technical devices. What subjects might he study over his first three years out of high school? If I was in the Folsom, California area, here are a few subjects that I might consider at Folsom Lake College (junior college): Chemistry – 5 units, Micro Economics 3 units, Physics – 4 units, Statistics – 3 units, Financial Accounting – 4 units, Mechanics of Solids and Fluids – 4 units. General Microbiology – 4 units, Environmental Biology – 3 units, Financing a Small Business – 1 unit, Business Law – 3 units, Introduction to Public Speaking – 3 units, Introduction to Logic Design – 4 units, Linux Operating System – 1 unit, Imaging for the Web – 1 unit, Engineering Graphics – 3 units. All for only $35 per unit as a resident (plus books) or $244 a unit if one is from out-of-state.

If Johnny is far away from the action (i.e. Elko, Nevada) where he can only communicate via phone, internet, email and text with the entrepreneurial world, then he should consider moving to where the opportunities are (Silicon Valley, New York City, Houston, Los Angeles).

But Johnny is simultaneously exploring a range of free online classes at sites like the Khan Academy. At the Khan Academy he digs into several technical subjects that might include: Photosynthesis, Types of Immune Responses, Visualizing Taylor Series Approximations, First Order Homogeneous Differential Equations, Representing Structures of Organic Molecules, Introduction to Torque, Newton’s Third Law of Motion, Compound Probability of Independent Events. And of course how can he pass up the free online class in Artificial Intelligence being offered at Stanford?

Without a doubt he has to learn the personal computer inside and out. This is 101 for entrepreneurs. He needs to know several operating systems, Excel (including macros), Visual Basic, and network creation, maintenance and security.

But today that is not nearly enough. One must also learn to develop and code applications for the IPhone and the Droid phones.

And Johnny is reading like crazy on a variety of business/entrepreneurial subjects. Here are some of the blogs that he might start his reading list with:

Martynemko.com
Bnet.com
venturebeat.com
blogmaverick.com
entrepreneur.com/blog/
getelastic.com
garage.com
ducttapemarketing.com/blog/
scobleizer.com
venturehacks.com
onstartups.com
texasstartupblog.com
toiletpaperentrepreneur.com/blog
thisisgoingtobebig.com

What an exciting time for Johnny. Johnny’s grandfather may have had no other options that working in the coal mine or the assembly line. Hopefully he will make the most of it.

A college professor questions the value of college

2011-09-11T08:44:00.001-07:00

A college professor questions the real value of a college education. The college establishment has helped the work world select and promote based on college degrees. If they could simply use the original entrance exams they would achieve the same filtering process for tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars less. Education is critical but not all education is created equal. Time to rethink our blanket acceptance of our college model.

Stanford offers free classes in Computer Science

2011-08-24T07:59:00.000-07:00

Another example along with the Khan Academy of the ability to get college level classes online for free.

Disconnect about what the different expectations are for college

2011-06-05T09:18:00.000-07:00

Quite a balanced piece (in other words I partially agree with it) as a follow up to Theil's fellowship program to encourage entrepreneurs to drop out of college and start a business.

A good point is the major disconnect between what the educational elite expect to produce out of this vast expenditure on college and what parents are expecting. Parents expect their son/daughter to go on to economic independence as a result of the investment. On the other hand, high school grads generally head off to college because they can not figure out anything better to do and their parents would be embarrassed if Johnny was not attending college.

The views of a 19 year old college drop out

2011-06-04T17:32:00.000-07:00

Nice piece about college by a 19 year old that has dropped out. Very worth the read. He is one
of the recent Thiel fellows that requires him to get on with his life without being a full-time student.

Getting youth to pursue entrepreneurial ideas!

2011-05-30T07:05:00.000-07:00

"The way I was thinking about it when I was a 17-year-old senior applying to college was I don't know what I'm going to do with my life. I'm just going to go to college. When I was a 21-year-old senior in college, it was I don't know what I'm going to do. I'll go to law school. And there was a way in which education and the university system was sort of a substitute for thinking about what I would do with my life."

A great concept by Peter Thiel about encouraging our youth to pursue new business ideas. He is giving a “scholarship” of $100,000 to 24 current college students that are 20 years old or younger that want to drop out of college and pursue their big ideas.

85% of the college class of 2011 are moving back home with their parents

2011-05-22T20:01:00.000-07:00

Arianna Huffington has some interesting thoughts for those graduating from college in the class of 2011. She does not differentiate between those graduating with degrees in Petroleum Engineering and those graduating with degrees in Gender Studies. After all not all college degrees are created equally - but she does not mention this.

It clearly matters what one spends for a college education and very importantly what one studies. If you study a fun subject for which no one needs your skills then you will be deep in debt, and back living with your parents along with 85% of your classmates.

Marty Nemko has great advice about college

2011-05-20T09:14:00.000-07:00

Mary Nemko has the credentials and always writes some of the most objective advice on considering a college education. Always worth a read.

What Obama didn't tell graduating seniors on Monday

2011-05-17T08:28:00.000-07:00

Obama spoke to 155 graduating seniors at Booker T Washington high school in Memphis on Monday, May 16.

"We live in a new world" he told new graduates of a high school in Memphis, Tennessee, warning that when they leave college in four years, they'll be competing for jobs not just against Americans but with the youths in Beijing and Mumbai.

"You're competing against young people in Beijing and Mumbai. That's some tough competition," he said. "Those kids are hungry. They're working hard. And you'll need to be prepared for it."

What Obama didn’t tell the seniors is that: “Since my administration is making it easier for illegal aliens to cross the border and then stay and work, that you will also be competing against these undocumented workers for a job as well.”

One attendee said: “It was just overflowing and exciting, as if Jesus just stepped in the room.”

If you are a sheep - go to college!

2011-05-16T19:43:00.000-07:00

Perhaps college is not as good an investment as it used to be. We are producing more college grads than ever before. But more of them have degrees in Psychology and History and have big college debts and not the slightest chance of ever paying off those debts.

Is it time to rethink the entire college value proposition? As this article points out:
“Muller, 26, graduated from Kean University in Union, N.J., yesterday with a bachelor’s degree in communication. She is the first person in her family to graduate from college. Like many graduates, she's now faced with the larger worry of living back at home while also paying down vast amounts of debt. All along, money’s been a chronic source of anxiety. In order to finish, Muller took out more than $70,000 in student loans and has another $10,000 in credit card debt.” OK Muller is screwed. She believed the hype and drank the lemonade without any questions. This is the result.

”A study conducted by Twentysomething Inc., a consultant firm specializing in young adults, reports that 85 percent of this year’s graduating class will be forced to move back home. Meanwhile, 2011 graduates also face historic amounts of student loan debt -- or an average of $27,200 for graduates that borrowed money in order to finish school.”

If you are simply a sheep then you will be sheared.

Advice for entrepeneurs

2011-05-16T16:30:00.000-07:00

Some very good advice form Jon Bischke for those those young at heart entrepreneurs on how to get started.

Why not learn by doing rather than learn in a 19th century model in college?

If it fails you can always go back to college.

Mike Rowe talks about need for skilled labor in America

2011-05-13T09:59:00.000-07:00

"Right now, American manufacturing is struggling to fill 200,000 vacant positions. There are 450,000 openings in trades, transportation and utilities. The skills gap is real, and it's getting wider. In Alabama, a third of all skilled tradesmen are over 55. They're retiring fast, and no one is there to replace them."

Excellent testimony by Mike Rowe the producer of the "Dirty Jobs" television series. Well worth the read. As a country we need more skilled laborers and fewer college grads in Philosophy. And if you want to make a good living, don't look down on these critical functions.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/dirtyjobs/mike-rowe-senate-testimony.html

All the right questions about college

2011-05-07T20:10:00.000-07:00

This mans asks all the right questions about the "college for everyone concept". Very well worth the time.

How law schools lure in students with scholarships that disappear

2011-05-01T10:49:00.000-07:00

An interesting article about how law schools lure in students with promised scholarships that the schools know they will frequently not have to deliver on. Since these law schools grade on the curve, many of the scholarship recipients that had assumed they could achieve a B average (a requirement of keeping the scholarship) are losing their full-tuition rides.

Home Schooling

2011-04-30T19:54:00.000-07:00

“We thought about home-schooling our kids and then we realized public school was free. And college cost like $50,000 a year. So we are going to wait until they are college age and then home school them.” Brian Kiley on the Late Show with David Letterman April 29, 2011.

We have a 19th-century classroom model in the 21st century

2011-04-28T19:15:00.000-07:00

Joel Klein says: "We have a 19th-century classroom model in the 21st century." And the same is true for our colleges.

Perhaps we can match Tunisia's college education stats

2011-04-24T16:22:00.000-07:00

An excellent American Thinker article about Obama’s mindless fixation on the college completion goal.

Of course Obama never differentiates between the number of Political Science majors (Obama's major) we are producing versus the number of engineering majors that graduate. Currently only 2.5% of all college graduates are US citizens in engineering. Another 2.5% are foreign students graduating with engineering degrees.

“Consider the dire warning that the U.S. has fallen to 9th place in the college graduate listings (in the world). The Administration takes it on face value that 9th place is bad, and 1st place is good.” “Of the eight nations above us, only Norway has a higher standard of living as measured by per capita income.”

Tunisia offers free college education, which has resulted in one of the highest college graduation rates of 57%. “Unfortunately unemployment rates among Tunisian college graduates is 45%.”

Replace the lecture format in many college classes

2011-04-24T12:46:00.000-07:00

This article by Dr. Marty Nemko is the kind of thinking that should allow us
to provide many college classes for a fraction of the cost.

He suggests: "StarProfs Classes would enable every student at any college -- from the best- to the worst-funded -- to receive, in a single course: -- exposure to 15 of the nation’s finest instructors."

Marty Nemko asks what these people have in common

2011-04-24T12:37:00.000-07:00

What do these people have in common relative to their college?

A give and take about the value of college.

2011-04-23T17:13:00.000-07:00

Here is a lively give and take on the benefits, cost and value of college today. I received this link from a Facebook friend in Minnesota. He graduated from Harvard in the Liberal Arts, went on to become an MD and sees far more value in today’s college study of the humanities that I do. But he knows that I am an advocate of change to our college system and we debate and discuss the subject regularly.

This Minnesota Public Radio blog includes opinions on both sides of the ledger but I will summarize the major arguments for the “College for everyone at any cost and any major” mainstream:

College increases critical thinking skills. A regular assumption of the college advocates is that college is the best way to increase our citizens’ critical thinking skills. And yet a recent study casts doubts on how much improvement in critical thinking skills actually occurs in college today.

We would expect the curious, the intelligent, the well-read, the personable on average to do better financially than those with fewer of these qualities. One post stated: “The opening of one's mind to new ideas and experiences certainly is less likely to happen if one doesn't choose to further one's education.” Absolutely, but there are plenty of ways to further one's education at a lower cost (frequently for free) than spending $50,000 a year attending college.

The prevailing thought is that if one does not attend college, and instead, works, travels, joins the military or starts a business that they are forever scarred intellectually. And the data rarely studies high school grads with equal SAT scores and IQs versus comparable individuals that take other paths.

One post went as far as to state: “A well-educated, well-informed populace is the best insurance against falling into tyranny. “ Is that so? Obviously we are not advocating an illiterate citizenry, but where is the evidence to support the view that a few more grads in Ethnomusicology are saving the world from tyranny?

College is a good investment at almost any cost. A blogger said: “For at least the last 25 years we've been told that a 4 year college education is worth nearly any cost.” The societal thinking is that a college educated workforce (even if they spend $200k over six years and studied Gender Studies or English) will make America more competitive. But I have yet to see any studies that show that recent 26 year old graduates in History consistently earning more than their high school buddies that got a technical certificate in welding. Likewise, I have seen no studies or empirical evidence that 40 year old Medieval German majors have created more jobs for other Americans than their neighbors who are entrepreneurs in the trades.

And we know one thing for sure: the cost curve for college has gone up much faster than inflation for decades. And we see increasing levels of college debt (greater than credit card debt) as well as more government debt, increasing college loan default rates and higher unemployment rates for recent grads. Much of this inflation is due to the fact that since more high school grads than ever are going to college this increase in demand, absent other mitigating factor, tends to push up prices (Econ 101). And since more of the cost of college is subsidized (via programs like government college loans) this reduces the push back on costs because the 18 year old college student perceives a lower cost than the total real cost and the student will not have to pay the piper for several years to come.

My prior blog pointed to a study entitled: “Going to an Elite College Won't Get You More Money; Being Good Enough to Get Accepted at One Will.” Yet most still believe that spending for an elite and usually more expensive college education is a great investment (by the student, his family and the taxpayer).

As one blogger put it: “Ah, if only I knew then what I know now... there is no way I would pay as much as I did for three degrees again. I would work my way through school even if it took me ten years. I would experiment with actual jobs (intern, volunteer, etc.) before starting in on a degree path.”

Another post noted: “It doesn't seem worth it when you realize you're not able to afford a house because of your monthly student loan payments.”

It does not matter what one majors in - any degree will do. And this is where some point to the old data that shows college grads on average earn $1 million more over their lifetimes than non-college grads. But the data never delineates how Petroleum Engineers did over their lifetimes versus Greek Mythology majors. As my Minnesota friend exemplifies, some of those Liberal Arts majors went on to Medical or Law School and did very well. But how do you think those average Joes that went to the State U, took six years to graduate in Journalism, and are now $80,000 in debt are faring in today’s economy? You might find a few examples that are thriving but my observations indicate this is rare.

One post asked: “Is college a trade school offering just a ROI? It didn't used to be. We used to want 'liberal arts' education to learn how to question, think, and become a responsible citizen.” Well that is never what I wanted for those that I am footing the bill (via my tax dollars or parental support). It is not that I don’t want educated, thinking and responsible voters; it is my doubt that our current college system is the best way to achieve this goal or that it now actually achieves this goal very often if at all.

It is important to do what you love - money is not everything. One post opined: “It depends on how one measures ‘worth the cost.’ I reject the premise that the sole criterion is whether it's a good financial investment. How much is wisdom worth on the free market?”
The “college for everyone” advocates start by bragging about the higher earnings for college grads and when this argument fails they fall back to “money doesn’t matter”. But earning enough to live independently has got to improve one’s sense of well-being and accomplishment. If one is starving then you had better really love the field you are in. More importantly, I have seen no studies (and I am always looking) or empirical evidence that recent English grads that are still unemployed or back working at an entry level position at Home Depot have greater life satisfaction than journeyman diesel mechanics.

It is time to question our assumptions about college. One post stated : “It seemed like everyone in my class was expected to go to college. If they did not pursue it they were looked at as people who would be unsuccessful in life.” is exactly the norm that we are questioning. Most of the discussion about college is anecdotal (both pro and con), from “it was a waste of time” to “I became so enlightened that it allowed me to enjoy the spirituality of my minimum wage job”. The debate is essential because if we continue the trend of primarily producing college grads that are deeply in debt and have no in-demand job skills then it will challenge America’s way of life and prosperity.

If critical thinking is the end result of non-practical post-secondary education, how do we know how much critical thinking we are getting for the dollar spent? It is hard for me to conceive of a critical thinker today that does not understand basic statistics and the inferences one can draw from different size samples. And it is hard to envisage a critical thinker that can not differentiate between the concept of correlation and causation. And I know few critical thinkers that do not understand the basics of college logic classes. And yet, I see little evidence that these skills are being learned broadly in college today, let alone at an affordable cost.

Is college the only way to expand one’s intellect? Obviously not. It may be great fun, and may expand one’s horizons in unique ways but in this era of instant information available on the internet, the Khan Academy and their free online schooling, Wikipedia, the many books available free via GoogleBooks, inexpensive computer-assisted learning materials (like Rosetta Stone for learning a foreign language), is the college model the best way to economically learn today?

This post summarizes much of our thinking about college: “Over the last 15 years, tuition costs have grown without added value or other valid justification. And only now are people asking the question. It's too late for a generation of students, but hopefully 11th grade math and economics classes will put this question front and center in their curriculum. Selling the blind faith that it's always worth it is a disservice to students everywhere.”

Peter Thiel on College

2011-04-16T18:43:00.000-07:00

Peter Thiel: We’re in a Bubble and It’s Not the Internet. It’s Higher Education.

"I can say that with confidence because it’s about Peter Thiel. And Thiel – the PayPal co-founder, hedge fund manager and venture capitalist – not only has a special talent for making money, he has a special talent for making people furious."

"Instead, for Thiel, the bubble that has taken the place of housing is the higher education bubble. “A true bubble is when something is overvalued and intensely believed,” he says. “Education may be the only thing people still believe in in the United States. To question education is really dangerous. It is the absolute taboo. It’s like telling the world there’s no Santa Claus.”"

"Like any good bubble, this belief– while rooted in truth– gets pushed to unhealthy levels. Thiel talks about consumption masquerading as investment during the housing bubble, as people would take out speculative interest-only loans to get a bigger house with a pool and tell themselves they were being frugal and saving for retirement. Similarly, the idea that attending Harvard is all about learning? Yeah. No one pays a quarter of a million dollars just to read Chaucer. The implicit promise is that you work hard to get there, and then you are set for life. It can lead to an unhealthy sense of entitlement. “It’s what you’ve been told all your life, and it’s how schools rationalize a quarter of a million dollars in debt,” Thiel says."

Marty Nemko with a great perspective on college

2011-04-07T08:40:00.000-07:00

Parents, high school students and politicians should be paying attention to Marty Nemko. A former academic that thinks outside the box and is not afraid to establish the status quo relative to college.

A few of his recent comments:

"Perhaps even more surprising, even high school students who are fully qualified to attend college are increasingly unlikely to derive sufficient benefit (see below) to justify the often six-figure cost and four to eight years it takes to graduate --and only 40 percent of each year's two million freshmen graduate in four years; 45 percent never graduate at all!"

"At a typical university, only 30% of the typical student's class hours will have been in a class with fewer than 30 students taught by a professor. That's not to say that professor-taught classes are so worthwhile. The more prestigious the institution, the more likely that faculty is hired and promoted much more on how much research they do than how well they teach. And indeed, contrary to colleges' self-serving claims, researchers are not the best qualified or motivated to teach the basics to undergraduates."

"Yet the government requires virtually no accountability or transparency from colleges. That, despite a college education, next to a home, being the largest purchase most people ever make and one that may have even greater impact than a home on the person's life."

Thanks for speaking out Marty!

What should our college goal be?

2011-03-27T14:48:00.000-07:00

Outstanding piece. The goal should not be the number of kids we send to college. The goal should be the number that graduate in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. We get what we measure.

A tech-driven world needs tech-educated workers

2011-03-26T10:19:00.000-07:00

A tech-driven world needs tech-educated workers. So it is great if the individual studies engineering or science in college. But a History degree is not going to do the trick and the media rarely distinguishes between students studying useful subjects in college (that are in demand in the work world) and those studying “fun, interesting, but non-useful” subjects.

The goal is not “a post-secondary” education. The goal is a set of skills whether obtained in high school, college, a trade school or online that will allow the individual to compete in today’s job market or better yet start her own business that will hire others.

Even The Optometrist Asks Where I Am Going To College

2011-03-25T10:33:00.000-07:00

Even the Optometrist Asks, ‘Where are You Going to College?’
By MICHAEL CAMPBELL

An interesting discussion by Michael Campbell a high school student waiting to figure out what college he will be accepted at.

But the important discussion is really what is Michael going to major in and how is he going to get a great education for a reasonable price.

For each student who defaults on a loan, at least two more fall behind on payments

2011-03-17T09:48:00.000-07:00

A new report by the Institute for Higher Education Policy has some interesting findings.

The study, based on data from five of the nation’s largest student-loan agencies, found that only 37 percent of student borrowers who started repaying their loans in 2005 were able to fully pay them back on time during the subsequent five year period.

For each student who defaults on a loan, at least two more fall behind in payments on their student debt. And these numbers are from a period (those starting to pay back their loans in 2005) when the economy was thriving. Do you think the results look better during the last couple of years of our recession?

What all these studies fail to consider is what the default rates are based on the amount borrowed and the major studied. Do you think the default rates might be higher for an English major that has borrowed $100,000 than a Petroleum Engineering major that only borrowed $20,000?

James Alucher's Thoughts about College

2011-02-26T15:37:00.000-08:00

Some contrarian thoughts about college from James Alucher, a writer, blogger, trader, and venture capitalist in his blog “Living Life is better than Dying in College”.

He says: “Colleges have made use of the myth that you can’t get a job unless you have a college education. So young people feel a rush to get that college out of the way so they can get a job and ‘begin’ their adult lives. I think kids should begin their adult lives at 18 by experiencing what else the world has to offer.”

“I saw what people were doing in college. I know now how much I learned in college and how much I learned in other experiences in life and which is more relevant to me now at the age of 43. And, btw, it was much cheaper when I went to school than it is now. So when did I develop this theory? Almost immediately when I realized college had nothing to do with any successes or failures that I had in life (and I had A LOT of failure despite college). And also, it took me 8 years to pay back my student loan debt. Now it takes kids 30 years to pay down that debt. It’s not fair to the youth of our country.”

Good to see someone that is willing to question the status quo and our herd mentality.

QUESTIONS ABOUT COLLEGE AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT AFTER HIGH SCHOOL

2011-02-18T08:20:00.000-08:00

There are no right or wrong answers here. But to the extent you think these through as a parent and then actively communicate your philosophy with your high school student your son or daughter will know what to expect. Here are a few questions for you start with.

- How do you feel about your daughter going to college?
- What are the advantages of college? This is a critical one; spend some time really thinking and researching it. If you attended college a generation ago, do not assume that your daughter will have the same experience. Do not assume that college is as a sure thing as it might have been a few decades ago.
- What are the disadvantages of attending college other than the cost and investment of time?
- Would you be embarrassed if your daughter did not attend college? Your friends are bragging about Susie heading off to Princeton and all you can talk about is Mary starting as a waitress at Mel’s Diner.
- Do you think college is a great investment at any cost?
- Some parents insist that their son work for a year before going to college. What do you see as the pros and cons of this requirement?
- If your daughter goes to college, how much are you willing to help financially and if so what conditions do you plan to put on this support?
- How do you feel about your son going into the military after high school? If he heads to the military rather than going to college are you willing to provide the same amount of Post High School subsidies? If so you are rare. Most parents will subsidize college, or even just hanging around the house but rarely will they subsidize military service, going to work or starting a new business.
- If your son attends college, what do you consider a full load?
- How do you feel about your daughter starting a business after high school? If she starts a business rather than attending college are you willing to provide the same amount of Post High School subsidies?
- How do you feel about your daughter working at a non-profit (for no pay or benefits) immediately after high school? If she does this are you willing to subsidize her to some degree and if she subsequently attends college will you provide the same amount of college subsidies that you would have provided if she had attended college immediately after high school?
- Are you willing or able to provide any subsidies at all after high school? If not is it clear to your son? If you are not going to provide any subsidies it makes sense to communicate this early rather than at the high school graduation ceremonies.
- If your son starts at an entry level job at the local utility are you willing to provide the same amount of Post High School subsidies? If not are you willing to provide any subsidies?
- How do you feel about your son living with you after high school? Do you feel the same about it when he is 19 years old as when he is 35?
- If your daughter attends college, how many years are you willing to subsidize? Consider that only about 53% of students that start college have graduated within six years.
- If your son attends college are you willing to support him studying virtually any subject? Some college subjects (like Accounting and Engineering) usually result in related jobs after college where other degrees (like Psychology and Theatre) are rarely generating good paying jobs after college.
- Are you willing to subsidize an impractical education (Gender Studies, Sociology, Art Appreciation) to the same extent that you are willing to subsidize a more practical field?
- Are you willing to subsidize your daughter attending graduate school right after she completes her undergraduate degree? Even if the only reason is that she has studied a subject (like Ethnomusicology in her undergraduate studies) that has no demand and it is either going to work at McDonalds or attending Grad school. How much are you willing to subsidize graduate school?

“23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism” by Ha-Joon Chang

2011-02-16T11:54:00.000-08:00

This book was recommended by a friend that generally has views that are quite left of mine. Nevertheless it is an interesting read. I disagree with most of Chang’s conclusions but concur with much of his take on investments in education. Chang believes in Capitalism but is down on “free-market capitalism”. He generally advocates bigger government and governments that direct more of the productive capacity of the government. That having been said, his views on education are very much in the minority and contrary to other big-government advocates.

When has a politician stood up and said: “We are investing too much in education, especially silly studies in Greek History, Music and Modern Art at our colleges and universities.”? Never. Instead, speech after speech is along the lines of Obama’s latest State of the Union address: “Of course, the education race doesn't end with a high school diploma. To compete, higher education must be within the reach of every American.”…” if we raise expectations for every child, and give them the best possible chance at an education, from the day they are born until the last job they take — we will reach the goal that I set two years ago: By the end of the decade, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.”

But Chang disagrees with this notion: “There is remarkably little evidence showing the more education leads to greater national prosperity. Much of the knowledge gained in education is actually not relevant for productivity enhancement, even though it enables people to lead a more fulfilling and independent life. Also, the view that the rise of the knowledge economy has critically increased the importance of education is misleading.” And I would question how effective it really is at helping people live more fulfilling lives, especially for the amount spent.

“With increasing de-industrialization and mechanization, the knowledge requirements may even have fallen for most jobs in the rich countries.”

Chang points out that it is taken for granted that: “More educated people are more productive - as evidenced by the higher salaries they get. So it is a matter of mathematical logic that an economy with more educated people will be more productive.”

Chang notes that: “In 1960, Taiwan had a literacy rate of only 54%, while Philippine’s was 72%. Despite its lower education level, Taiwan has since then notched up one of the best economic growth performances in human history. In 1960, the Philippines had almost double the per capita income of Taiwan ($200 vs $122), but today Taiwan’s per capita income is around ten times that of the Philippines ($18,000 vs. $1,800)” This is where I think Chang draws conclusions from limited observations. Obviously there are so many factors that determine the economic performance of a country and education is just one of them. The Philippines was a US territory until the end of World War II. Since independence in 1946, the country has not had a very stable democracy and had to deal with Ferdinand Marcos’s corrupt dictatorship from 1972- 1986. After the return to democracy in 1986, progress was hampered by national debt, government corruption, coup attempts, a persistent communist insurgency and an Islamic separatist movement.

Chang cites Lant Pritchett, a Harvard economist who worked at the World Bank for a long time. “Pritchett analyzed the data from dozens of rich and developing countries during the 1960-87 period and conducted an extensive review of similar studies in order to establish whether education positively influenced growth. His conclusion is that there is very little evidence to support the view that increased education leads to higher economics growth.” In Pritchett’s paper he says: “possibly education does raise productivity, and there is demand for this more productive educated labor, but demand for educated labor comes from individually remunerative but socially wasteful or counterproductive activities - a bloated bureaucracy, for example, or overmanned state enterprises in countries where the government is the employer of last resort - so that while individuals' wages go up with education, output stagnates, or even falls.”

Chang asks: “Why is there so little evidence to support what seems to be such an obvious proposition that more education should make a country richer? It is because, to put it simply, education is not as important in raising the productivity of an economy as we believe. To begin with, not all education is even meant to raise productivity. There are many subjects that have no impact, even indirectly, on most workers’sproductivity - literature, history, philosophy and music, for example”

“To begin with, with the continuous rise in manufacturing productivity, a greater proportion of the workforce in rich countries now require much less education - stacking shelves in supermarkets, frying burgers in fast food restaurants and cleaning offices. Insofar as the proportion of people in such professions increases, we may actually do with an increasingly less, not more, educated work labor force, if we are only interested in the productivity effects of education. Moreover, with economic development, a higher proportion of knowledge becomes embodied in machines.”

“A large part of this is due to the simple fact that mechanization is the most important way to increase productivity.”

“Now, it may be argued that, even though economic development may not necessarily require the average worker to be more educated, it needs more educated people at the higher end. After all, as I have pointed out above, the ability to generate more productive knowledge than others is what makes a country richer than others. Thus seen, it may be argued, it is the quality of universities, rather than that of primary schools, that determines a nation’s prosperity.” Perhaps this is the case in the fields of science and engineering, but doubling our expenditures in literature, music and history is unlikely to increase our productivity. So we need to consider very specifically what kind of college investments that government should subsidize if we care about increasing our wealth.

Chang states: “Let us take the striking example of Switzerland. The country is one of the top few richest and most industrialized countries in the world, but it has, surprisingly, the lowest - actually by far the lowest - university enrollment rate in the rich world; until the early 1990s, only around one-third of the average for other rich countries. Until as late as 1996, the Swiss university enrolment rate was still less than half the OECD average (16 percent vs. 34 per cent).”

“Higher education, of course, imparts certain productivity-related knowledge to its recipients, but another important function of it is to establish each individual’s ranking in the hierarchy of employability. In many lines of work, what counts is general intelligence, discipline and the ability to organize oneself, rather than specialist knowledge, much of which you can, and have to, actually pick up on-the-job.” But how well does our US college system really develop discipline and organization skills? With degree deflation and a move to treat the college student like a “customer”, there has been a trend for faculty to go along to get along - in other words, don’t make the tests and the assisgnments too difficult because then the college student will not give the professor good evaluations that are required to keep one’s job. And the more pleasant we make the resort-like setting and create an environment where everyone passes, how much of a real ranking system have we created? Does graduating from a cushy college where virtually everyone graduates really demonstrate much self-discipline?

Chang notes: “By hiring you as a university graduate, your employer is then hiring you for those general qualities, not for your specialist knowledge, which is often irrelevant to the job you will be performing.” As Caroline Bird said: “It may well be that college attracts large numbers of those who are predisposed to change and learn – and that they would score high on all the test whether they go to college or not. If this is so, if college selects rather than creates ability, the diploma has become what Christopher Jencks of Harvard calls “a hell of an expensive aptitude test.”

Chang goes further: “Once the proportion of people going to university goes over a critical threshold, people have to go to university in order to get a decent job. When, say 50% of the population goes to university, not going to university is implicitly declaring that you are in the bottom half of the ability distribution, which is not the greatest way to start your job search. So, people go to university, fully knowing that they will ‘waste time’ studying things that they will never need for their work.” Actually I don’t know that our 18 year olds really know what they are going to learn in college. They simply know that everyone says they need to go, that their parents and society are subsidizing that path but no other one and they haven’t really considered any alternatives. Finally why would an 18 year old want to start a tough job rather than lazing around a beautiful campus in search of beautiful coeds?

And because of our discrimination laws, company hiring practices need to show relevance to the job being filled. So employers generally don’t use SAT and GMAT scores in hiring because they can’t show definitively the connection between higher test scores on these tests and the requirement for their work. If the employer uses test scores that have not been shown not to not discriminate based on cultural and racial backgrounds (I do not know how to express this accurately without a double negative), they can put themselves at risk of lawsuits. But the college degree is now accepted as a valid delineator for whom one hires. So employers indirectly achieve the same SAT score aptitude test but at a very expensive price.

But beyond basic IQ and technical know-how, how many employers really look at the self-discipline demonstrated in college. Things like, how much the individual paid for the experience himself, how much the graduate worked during college, how many units per semester did she take, how many classes did the candidate drop, are all factors that are generally ignored by those hiring recent college grads.

Chang states that: “Given that Switzerland was until the mid 1990s able to maintain one of the highest national productivities in the world with a university enrollment of 10-15 per cent, we could say that enrolment rates much higher than that are really unnecessary.”

“In the case of rich countries, their obsession with higher education has to be tamed. This obsession has led to unhealthy degree inflation and the consequent over-investment of huge scale in higher education in many countries.”

In summary we think:

1. There are a myriad of factors that determine a country’s economic success. Just a few of the non-education factors are the type of economy, government debt, birth rates, political stability, innovation, investments made in the past, access to natural resources, and cultural work ethic. The right investment in education (by government and the individual) can clearly help the individual. But the wrong kind of education investments will do little to make a country more competitive.
2. There are different lag times for different factors. For example a huge hurricane or earthquake or a terrorist attack can put the economy behind almost instantly but additional expenditures in pre-school education will probably not pay off for 20+ years.
3. College diplomas are now a sorting system for employment opportunities and it is a very expensive and sometimes ineffective way to sort.
4. It matters what education we invest in. College education that leads to more productivity in a country will have a bigger payback on broad-based prosperity than those investments that are for the general interest and the “enlightenment” of students.
5. Greater expenditures on education do not necessarily lead to an increase in practical know-how or greater prosperity.

Is it any wonder that 70% of American high school grads go immediately onto college?

2011-02-01T17:28:00.000-08:00

It’s where the money is. Not the money 10 years later but where virtually all the money is for an 18 year old.

Most parents subsidize their children attending college (cars, tuition, room and board). But how many parents subsidize their kids starting a business right after high school, starting a job, or joining the military?

For some high school students, college is the right fit. But for many of the 47% that attend college and have not graduated within six years it is not. And for many of the roughly half of today’s college graduates that walk away with a degree in subjects like Ethnomusicology, Sociology, English, History, Theatre, Art Appreciation or Dance, and are finding no job offers, it may not be the right path either.

Campus visit or Major visit?

2011-01-31T07:40:00.000-08:00

We think that most high school students and their families usually get the sequence backwards. First they select a college and then they select a major. But selecting a college first assumes that which college you attend is the most important factor. Many an advisor declares that the college major is one of the most important choices made by the student. They are wrong; your major is the most important decision.

If one’s goal is to gain financial independence via a college education (granted this is not the mission of every 18 year old), then what one studies makes all the difference. Today’s graduates in Petroleum Engineering are getting multiple job offers at high starting salaries. On the other hand those that are graduating with degrees in Theatre, Medieval German and Gender Studies rarely find any job offers at all.

If you want to pursue a degree in Petroleum Engineering there are fewer colleges to choose from (see CollegeToolKit.com). On the other hand it is hard to find a college that does not have a Business degree (the most common of degrees in America today).

How does one conduct a Major visit? How does one check out different majors and the opportunities in these majors to determine if a major is a good fit for your skills and interests?

Unfortunately most high school guidance counselors can’t help much; most of them can’t tell you how the opportunities vary between a chemical engineer and a petroleum engineer.

You might actually need to visit a campus or two. But not to check out the resort like setting but to speak to the professors in the field you are interested in. Talk to some of the students in your major, and perhaps sit in on a class. Then meet with the Student Placement office and see what you can learn about who is hiring the graduates and if you can get the contact details so you can talk to the folks with the jobs directly. This action is valuable on a number of dimensions because some of these same campus reps might have ideas for you about scholarships and internships once you arrive at college.

One clue about the right major is investigating how those majors are faring in getting internships during their summers. If the internships are primarily with no pay that is a sign of a poor demand for grads in that area. If the internships are primarily for pay, then it is a sign that employers are recruiting college grads in a field where recent grads are in high demand.

Keep in mind that the most common major for college freshmen is Undecided. If you are unsure, why not attend your community college for a year or two or work for a year while you try to narrow down your career direction?

And a majority of college students change their majors during college. But there are changes and there are changes. Going from Computer Science to Math in your freshman year is a minor deviation. Switching from Mechanical Engineering to Civil Engineering in one’s sophomore year is also not a big deal. But if you decide in your senior year that instead of wanting to be an elementary teacher you want to change to pre-med, you just added a couple of years duration to your college experience (even before you start medical school). And if you have studied at a typical private Liberal Arts college they might not even have the science curriculum that you need to get ready for Med School.

There are a number of online career assessment tools at Quintessential Careers. But keep in mind that these assessments tend to focus on what you might be good at. They rarely reflect whether there are in fact many jobs in the field. You might be an outstanding musician but are you really good enough to earn a living as one?

So think major first and college second when planning out your college path.

When it comes to education we get what we measure

2011-01-29T09:25:00.000-08:00

One of the goals I consistently hear is that we need to increase the number of college graduates produced by the United States. The most agressive of these is that the goal should be that 100% of Americans ought to be college graduates.

Today the US has more college grads (as a percentage of those over 25) than ever before - roughly 27%. In 1940, this number was about 5%. Oddly enough, as the percentage has gone up, the US has fallen from the World’s most competitive and powerful economy to one that is struggling.

As we continuously set and measure the wrong goals (for example, the percentage of high school students who go on to college), we also become more efficient at producing the wrong results. We have succesfully achieved higher college graduation numbers, but we've ineffectively instilled the knowledge and learning needed to make America more competitive.

Likewise, if we simply track the high school dropout rate, and the only goal is to reduce the number of high school dropouts, a likely unintended consequence is that schools simply dumb down the curriculum enough to allow more to graduate from high school and then declare victory. Today , nearly one third of US high school students either drop out or fail to finish high school in four years. Clearly it is far more expensive to educate kids who don’t want to learn than to educate those that do.

Testing based on the "No Child Left Behind" act is designed to reward high performing schools and penalize poor schools - but the entire emphasis has been on English and Math. English and Math are extremely important, but equally important - yet ignored and not measured - are science test scores. Since we have not acknowleged the importance of measuring science results, we have consequently invested inadequately (resources and time) in the subject. One or two US students of every 100 scored well enough to be considered advanced in science according to a recent report by the National Assessment of Education Progress in Science. This portends a bleak future for America’s ability to stay competitive in the world technology markets.

“Highlights of national (math and science test results) show that 34 percent of fourth-graders, 30 percent of eighth-graders, and 21 percent of twelfth-graders performed at or above the Proficient level, demonstrating competency over challenging subject matter.” The longer our students stay in our public school system, the farther behind they fall in science.

In President Obama’s last state of the union address, he called for a “Sputnik movement” fed by investments in research and education. Who among our growing universe of Americans who have never passed a science or math test will conduct this research? We didn’t send a man to the moon on the backs of college graduates in Sociology and Gender Studies.

There is much talk about rewarding the top teachers and dropping the rest. This sounds like a good start. But absent a system for measuring the factors that will make America competitive, we risk simply getting more efficient at teaching the wrong subjects. And of course, if our public employee unions insist on pay for seniority rather than pay for results, and if we fail to challenge and change that position, it may not make much of a difference what we measure.

Perhaps we need a radically different education system, one run by private enterprise and non-profits but requiring transparency in standardized test score results (including Science) for all to see and compare. Among competing private schools, some might rely on different combinations of online education, computer-assisted learning, frequent testing, and grandmotherly encouragement. And the government’s role in education would be restricted to providing financial support via vouchers and formulating and auditing a uniform testing system that measures learning results for English, Math and Science. Then the government would leave the management and execution of education to the private sector. We would see much more learning taking place at a far lower price.

The longer our students stay in our public system the poorer they do in science.

2011-01-26T11:18:00.000-08:00

Just one or two US students out of every 100 scored well enough to be considered advanced in science according to a recent report by the National Assessment of Education Progress in Science. This gives a bleak forecast for America’s ability to stay competitive in the world technology markets.

“Highlights of the national results show that 34 percent of fourth-graders, 30 percent of eighth-graders, and 21 percent of twelfth-graders performed at or above the Proficient level, demonstrating competency over challenging subject matter.” The longer our students stay in our public system the poorer they do in science.

And of course the study points to the shortage of science and math teachers. There are no shortage of History teachers. This is not to diminish the role of History teachers but when we pay them as much as science and math teachers, the few science, math and engineering grads we have graduating from college these days will generally accept much better paying jobs outside of teaching. And even if they want to be a teacher, the school districts, with their teacher unions won’t hire a recent science teacher when they are laying off an experienced History teacher. With union seniority rules, the school districts will instead ask the History teacher to do their best at teaching Chemistry. What a mess.

Is it any wonder that only about 2.5% of college graduates today are US students in Engineering?

You don’t have a job. Why don’t you just work at McDonalds?

2011-01-22T08:01:00.000-08:00

Mike Palascak on the Letterman Show: “I live at home with my parents. Yeh - it’s temporary, probably. A lot of people my age they feel bad living at home or they feel bad asking their parents for money. I don’t.” “My mom was really worried I wouldn’t get a job after college. Michael, you don’t have a job. Why don’t you just work at McDonalds? Because I don’t want to lose my eligibility for the Monopoly game. ”

First things first

2011-01-10T16:34:00.000-08:00

Too many high school students get it backwards when it comes to selecting a college. First they select a college and then (sometimes years later) they select a major.

This is bass ackwards.

What if you select Western Governors University and then decide to major in Chemical Engineering? It is a great school and very cost-effective but guess what? They don’t have any engineering programs. It is a great school if you want to teach.

What if you start at Colgate University (a prestigious Liberal Arts college) and then determine that studying Mechanical Engineering would be a good fit for your skills. But Colgate has no such major.

Granted, not every 17-18 year high school student knows what career they will pursue. So if the student is unsure of what to study, wouldn’t it make more sense for him to attend either a community college to finish the general curriculum classes or to attend a college or university that has a very broad range of course offerings? Or better yet, how about taking a year off and working while you find the right educational fit.

The only reason one should pick a college first is if you are simply filling time or believe the fallacy that any college degree is as valuable as any other college degree.

For many Law School is a losing proposition

2011-01-10T13:08:00.000-08:00

This is an excellent article in the NY times yesterday about the payback for Law School. The tragedy is not just that so many of these students are investing so much in a field that is such a long shot but for many of these students they are doubling up on a poor undergraduate college investment where they studied subjects like Art History, Sociology, or Psychology.

It is not uncommon for a recent college graduate in Medieval German with no options for related work to fall back on attending graduate school, where she can postpone the immediate obligation to pay off the prior college debt. So on top of $50,000 of undergrad debt, the recent grad keeps digging a little deeper into debt and three years later owes another $150,000 for Law School loans. Now she has an undergraduate Law Degree to completment her Gender Studies degree and absolutely no ability to pay off the loans.

We really do need some truth in advertising on this subject.

The fastest growing university in America

2011-01-04T07:28:00.000-08:00

What is the fastest growing university in the US? Probably one that you have never heard of: Western Governors University (WGU). They have about 23,000 full time students, up from 14,000 in June, 2009.

It is a non-profit, accredited, strictly online institution that is providing far better value in college education than the college establishment. They use technology to reduce college costs, while most colleges and universities have typically used technology as an excuse to increase costs and tuition.

You won’t find interesting (but impractical) majors where graduates rarely get a related job (like Sociology, Ethnomusicology, Modern Dance, Psychology). WGU sticks to their knitting with a few areas of study (Education, Business, Health Care and IT) which allows graduates to find jobs.

The cost is only $5,800 per 12 month period; for that a student can take as many classes as she can handle and finish. Once one completes the work and passes the exams, he can move on to the next course. On average, students complete their degrees in just 30 months at a total cost of less than $15,000 for a four-year degree.

The average student age is 36 and most of them have families and a full time job. It clearly takes more discipline to complete this kind of a program and so they have fewer students right out of high school.

Each student meets (online) with a mentor at least every other week, to confer about the course work, and also discuss how the material applies to the real world. Even the exams are taken from home via a clever online testing methodology.

WGU mentors don't get tenure that guarantees them a job, nor are they encouraged to publish academic papers or conduct research. And lo and behold they don’t have unaffordable public pensions and benefits packages that are out of line with the private sector. But the faculty by and large can work from their homes as well.

One Teacher’s College Graduate said: “I would have never been able to attend a university and follow my dreams if it wasn’t for WGU. I work full time and have three kids; online schooling was my only option if I wanted to stay involved in my childrens' lives.”

This is the kind of revolution we need from our college and university system. We need to drastically reduce the cost (not just slow down increases) and we need to remove subsidies for the study of fun, esoteric but impractical subjects like Greek, Art History, Gender Studies, and Recreation Management. My congratulations go to WGU.

With the best of intentions South Korea has educated itself into a corner

2011-01-02T07:56:00.000-08:00

A fascinating blog by Mark Harris.

"On 60 Minutes a few weekends ago, it was mentioned that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would like 80% of American youth to attend and graduate from college. It is a nice thought in many ways. As a teacher and professor, intellectually I am all for it (if the university experience is a serious one, which these days, I don’t know).

But students’ expectations in attending college are not just intellectual; they are careerist (probably far more so). As it happens, I am now living and teaching in a country, South Korea, that meets the Gates’ standards. Right now, about 75-80% of Korean high school students enter a university. The 20% of Korean youth who do not attend university are mainly poor rural youth. Given the Koreans’ diligence, it is not surprising that the vast majority of university attendees also graduate, many with majors in scientific and engineering disciplines (“soft” degrees like marketing are not as popular here). This is a dedicated country.

But you know what? They can’t find jobs. It was reported in the Korean media a few weeks ago that according to the latest government figures, only half of recent Korean university graduates have found full-time work. Even the country’s best university, Seoul National, only has a 70% placement rate.

Now, Korea is experiencing an economic downturn, but not as bad as America’s. This employment issue has more to do with levels of training and subsequent levels of expectation. When a Korean student emerges from 20 years of intense study with a university degree, he or she reasonably expects a “good” job — which is to say, a well-paying professional or managerial job with good forward prospects. But here’s the problem. There does not exist, nor will there ever exist, a society in which 80% of the available jobs are professional, managerial, comfortable, and well-paid. No way. Korea has a number of other jobs, but some are low-paid service work, and many others — in factories, farming, fishing — are scorned as 3-D jobs (difficult, dirty, and dangerous). Educated Koreans don’t want them. So the country is importing labor in droves — from China, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines, even Uzbekistan. In the countryside, rural Korean men are having such a difficult time finding prospective wives to share their agricultural lifestyle that fully 40% of rural marriages are to poor women from those other Asian countries, who are brought in by match-makers and marriage brokers.

Since young Koreans almost invariably live at home until marriage, whether they are working or not, it is routine for the young unemployed to do so. Their parents, who have a lot invested in their children’s successful outcomes, discourage them from taking low-level, part-time, or contract work, even just to get a start in life. As is usually the case, the only way they can see of improving their lot is not by lowering their expectations, but by improving their qualifications: by scoring well on English tests, getting additional certificates, and so on. But everyone else is doing this, too, so the competitive field remains the same. What will happen to these youths? The more years they don’t work, the less chance there is that they ever will. They become tainted, and possibly a permanently disenfranchised minority.

This country, in short, has, with the best of intentions, educated itself into a corner."

This blog raises several points. 1) We don't want everyone studying the same thing, even if it is a tough subject like electrical engineering. 2) The college subjects that pay off in one decade may be different than the next decade. 3) It is a weakness if one can not find a job related to one's major and is then not willing to bite the bullet and go find unrelated work. 4) Education is like other commodities and driven by supply and demand principles; if everyone majors in civil engineering we will likely end up with too many civil engineers and their pay will suffer. 5) An educated work force can create opportunities for laborers and immigrants. 6) The goal of 80% of American Youth graduating from college might be too high.

Why Did 17 Million Students Go to College?

2011-01-02T06:58:00.000-08:00

Richard Vader in his excellent article "Why Did 17 Million Students Go to College?" in the Chronicle for Higher Education, he states that new information has "reinforced my feeling that diminishing returns have set in to investment in higher education, with increasing evidence suggesting that we are in one respect 'overinvesting' in the field."

"As more and more try to attend colleges, either college degrees will be watered down (something already happening I suspect) or drop-out rates will rise."

Richard's critics argue (with no supporting data) that history has always favored those with a college education. The "invest in college at any cost" advocates consistently confuse a causal relationship (i.e. college contributes to higher wages) versus the correlation of college and higher wages (i.e. smarter people go to college and intelligence is a predictor or success). The critics also hate the notion that college needs to pay for itself by relying on vocational education (i.e. education that leads to a good-paying job as opposed to education that merely enlightens).

One of the critical comments on the author's blog stated: "I imagine that at the CHE Vedder is seen as some kind of 'provocative in-house critic' or some such nonsense." "I honestly wonder why the Chronicle keeps Vedder around." So this is how some in the establishment react to any questioning of the "any college investment is a good investment" argument.

Another critic said "Since we know that education has no consequence other than individual financial profit, it's obvious that we don't want to administer it to those who won't profit from it. Waste of time, really. Surely there's a nice neat test that will let us weed out the weak sisters for life as gammas? Those parking lot attendants don't need to think (or vote, or make life choices)." But what evidence do we have that a $200,000 college education in Sociology really makes the grad a better voter or citizen? Please help me see the evidence of this enlightenment.

Another response said: "It should be apparent that college should be about more than vocational training for professional and higher paying jobs." Another said college "gives you tools and skills for a maximum appreciation of life in all its domains." Well this is not apparent to me in the slightest (although I grant that the college establishment disagrees with me on this one). The challenge with all of this added enlightenment is how do you measure progress on the enlightment curve? How well has the college grad improved his critical thinking skills and persepctives that will make him a better citizen? This enlightenment category is never measured, never proven and few outside the education establishment want to pay for someone else's daughter to obtain it.

In general, the college establishment wants to use the evidence of greater financial rewards for college grads when it supports them and use the enlightenment argument when the financial investment argument does not work. I come from a perspective that beleives that the investment in college needs to stand on its own. Let's remove all the subsidies for college that total somewhere between $7,000 to $10,000 per college student per year. If a family wants to pay for Johnny to get enlightened then let them pay for it. If Johnny wants to study a less fun but more in demand subject then let Johnny and his family pay for it and reap the beneifts as well.

100 institutions are charging $50k per year or more

2011-01-01T10:53:00.000-08:00

"The ranks of the most expensive colleges have grown again: 100 institutions are charging $50,000 or more for tuition, fees, room, and board in 2010-11, according to a Chronicle analysis of data released last week by the College Board."

The risk of attending college

2010-12-30T10:59:00.000-08:00

We don’t generally talk about the risk of attending college. But it is a big investment for the individual, his parents, and taxpayers that subsidize the average college student at least $10,000 per student per year (via guaranteed student loans, state and federal grants, state subsidies of colleges and tax deductions for donations to colleges). And big investments involve risk and reward. A college education is no sure thing even thought we frequently here much more about the rewards than the risks.

Two alternatives to college are for junior to work right after high school or start his own business. Why is it risky for junior to experience real work and the business world before he enters academia?

The analysis is quite different for college entrants than they were for my grandfather when he headed off to UC Berkeley in 1917. Few high school grads back then had a chance to attend college, and college graduates were a rare commodity. It didn’t cost nearly as much (relative to the cost of living), virtually nobody borrowed to attend college and those families wealthy enough to be able to afford this luxury were already in the top economic tier. My grandfather graduated in 1921 with no debt and a head start over his high school mates that had worked on the farm during the same four years.

But today the college “investment” is different and far riskier. Here are the three main risks involved with going to college today right after high school:

1) You won’t finish. Today only about half of those entering college have graduated within six years. (If you graduated in the bottom 40% of your high school class and went to college then 76% won’t earn a diploma). For college students who ranked among the bottom quarter of their high school classes, the numbers are even scarier: 80 percent will probably never get a bachelor’s degree or even a two-year associate’s degree.

2) You will pile up far too much debt to pay off your student loans with the rewards of the college education you have earned. Americans now owe more on their college student loans than on their credit cards.

3) You studied a “fun” or interesting degree rather than one in demand in the job market. So you have graduated but no one but the fast food chains want to hire you. Modern Dance or Sociology sounded interesting when you selected your major as an 18 year old but no one ever warned you that after all the time and money you invested in earning your degree, you were destined for poverty.

Perhaps the lesson today isn't that you shouldn't go to college, but that you should approach it like you would any other investment: with caution.

“It’s a very risky investment,” said Laurence Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University and president of Economic Security Planning Inc., which makes financial planning software.

America's Waiters and Cashiers Are Over-Educated

2010-12-26T13:50:00.000-08:00

Good article at Reason.com.

And not only are America's waiters over-educated - they are deep in debt because of their college student loans. I don't really buy into the notion of being over-educated; I just don't want to pay for your study of esoteric and impractical subjects. If you are going to pay for it, I could give a flip what and how long you study.

Not everyone should go to college and if one goes to college, it should not cost nearly as much as it does. And we should not be borrowing (as governments, parents and students) for this education. Let the market function; eliminate all the borrowing and the subsidies and we can sort this mess out.

Not all education is created equally. A BA in Art History will not afford you the same opportunites as a BS in Electrical Engineering. Even if the former is at an expensive private Liberal Arts College at $50,000 per year and the later is at the State U for $8,000 per year.

Let's get rid of the government subsidies for college. This by itself will lower the cost, and help focus colleges and students on education that will pay for itself.

Going to an Elite College Won't Get You More Money; Being Good Enough to Get Accepted at One Will.

2010-12-26T13:28:00.000-08:00

In 1999, economists from Princeton and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation compared students at more selective colleges to others of “seemingly comparable ability,” based on their SAT scores and class rank, who had attended less selective schools, either by choice or because a top college rejected them.

The earnings of graduates in the two groups were about the same — perhaps shifting the ledger in favor of the less expensive, less prestigious route.

100 Percent Of College Football Players Receiving Benefits Of Being College Football Players

2010-12-24T07:37:00.000-08:00

An exhaustive three-year internal investigation has confirmed that a full 100 percent of college football players receive the advantages that come with being a college football player, the NCAA reported Friday. "We were frankly stunned at the benefits athletes received when it came to classwork, housing, transportation, tuition, even food.

Word of mouth is an important factor in keeping up the “image” of a college

2010-12-22T09:19:00.000-08:00

This article in the Huffington Post is the kind of drivel that we hear too frequently relative to the cost of college.

The author, David Skorton, the President of Cornell University talks about the “net price” of college as being less than the sticker price. But if one adds the cost of all the subsidies (parent, government and donations) of at least $10,000 per student per year (in governmental subsidies alone) the “actual cost” of college today is actually much higher than the sticker price. The student may experience a lower net price but only because the taxpayers are picking up the rest of the tab.

This article never asks: 1) What the heck are students actually studying today at college? 2) Why have we combined minor league football and college? Why not move minor league football outside of college like we have in professional baseball? 3) Why are we paying professors more for their esoteric “research” rather than their effectiveness in educating our youth? 4) Why do we have to invest so much in the ambiance of the campus (large park-like settings with resort dorms and meals that are fit for a cruise ship)?

College should be tough and we should have standardized tests that allow us to determine who is producing the most useful education for the dollar spent (this is called productivity).

Word of mouth is an important factor in keeping up the “image” of a college. So the author points to a recent study by the American Council on Education that says 89% of alumni reported that “their college experience had been worth it”. First, many of these grads have not paid for their education yet and so it is too early for them to experience buyer’s remorse. And more importantly, with what do these unemployed, deep-in-debt, Sociology majors have to compare their college experience? Once you drink the Kool-Aid, you are vested in getting the next poor schmuck to drink the Kool-aid as well. Do we really expect the recent grad to say: “I was an idiot, and my parents were morons to push me into attending six years of college to pursue my dream of an Ethnomusicology degree. I am working at Kentucky Fried Chicken right now but at least I can now better understand the rhythm and the melody of a hard working fast food operation.”

Skorton goes on to state: “The increasing emphasis on higher education in China, India and other emerging economies is testimony to the near-universal agreement that success in this world, not to mention national competitiveness, requires more, not less, higher education. Thus, we as a country need to expand, not contract, the availability of higher education and increase public investment in colleges and universities.” In other words, because others agree with our madness, do not give up the ship. And he insinuates that we need the existing college establishment to do this expanding.

The author states: “We can no longer avoid true, tough and thoroughgoing reviews of faculty productivity and quality, including after tenure is granted.” But how does tenure help provide a great education at a competitive price? If we move towards a market based system where we see what institutions and entrepreneurs transmit the most education for the dollar spent then tenure and public employee unions will be left in the dust.

And then Skorton goes on to say: “Given our continuing uncertain economy, I call on my colleagues in higher education to reduce the rate of rise of our operating costs through focus, connectivity, accountability and administrative streamlining.” What do you mean reduce the rate of rise? How about starting by cutting your cost structure at Cornell by 50% (tuition alone is now $39,450 for undergraduate nonresidents of New York)?

Skorton’s comments would be like the former CEOs of Braniff, Eastern, and PanAm airlines explaining: “We will be charging $1,000 per trip from Los Angeles to Las Vegas because the rate of inflation and the tenure agreements we have with our pilots have resulted in our costs going up at twice the rate of inflation.” And then expecting Southwest Airlines to just sit back and do nothing. Instead Southwest blew the competition away by challenging the basic value proposition. They were the first to say: “We won’t give you meals; we will give you peanuts. We won’t assign seats instead we will give you an incentive to show up early and line up so we can turn our planes around faster than the old school.” Guess what Dr. Skorton - you are the old Brantiff Airlines. You are an old unionized and protected industry that needs to face and adapt to real competition.

We need outsiders and new entrants to challenge the way we deliver college education. We have to be careful about listening too much to 18 year olds complaining about their dorm rooms and tenured professors bitching about not having enough time for their “research”.

Dr. Skorton deals little with basic supply and demand principles because of all the subsidies built into the US college system. Perhaps he should go online for a free refresher course in these ideas at Wikipedia, the Khan Academy or Google Books.

What combination of services might provide a far less expensive college education?

2010-12-20T07:28:00.000-08:00

The Khan Academy might be at the center of the new college experience. It is a free online not-for-profit organization with a mission of providing a world-class education to anyone, anywhere.

At Khan one can study subjects from Calculus, Chemistry, Economics, Finance, Physics, Probability, Statistics, & Biology. They even have some History classes. But alas they currently offer nothing in Ethnomusicology, Sociology, Physical Education, Recreation Management or Gender Studies. And all of their programs are free.

So why are some college students spending $50,000 a year to study some of these same subjects? Well first the “college experience” is given much credence. And second, it is not the learning that is valued by our society nearly as much as the eventual “degree”. And third, students are greatly subsidized (by parents and government) and usually don’t have to start paying off their college loans for several years so they tend to be indifferent to cost comparisons while at college.

If cost-effective learning is the goal, then between online education, and some complimentary for-profit services including private live laboratories, the “education” component could be achieved at a much lower cost.

Look at the Advanced Placement classes and exams that high school students are taking at an ever increasing rate. These high school students get college credit for demonstrating the mastery of a subject and at a cost that is much less than college. And the mastery of the subject is confirmed via a standardized exam.

But a class in Advanced Engineering Mathematics at one college may not be equivalent to the learning achieved at another institution. We can easily compare the cost; we just can’t compare the learning achieved for the money spent.

The broadly accepted notion that everyone needs to “attend” college, and that college is a great investment no matter the cost or the field of study are finally getting challenged. And with all the subsidies given to those attending college (both the hidden and obvious that currently add up to at least $10,000 per student per year) has allowed the cost to go through the roof.

We rely on the traditional lecture where we pay an expensive professor (or his less expensive graduate assistant) to instruct a class in the method that has been used (with very little adaption) in universities for centuries. We have also combined minor league football, resort living (beautiful campuses, great recreation facilities, comfortable dorms and excellent food), “research” and some very expensive education together into today’s college. But what we haven’t emphasized is preparation of our youth that makes graduates and therefore America more competitive in the world economy.

In addition to the Khan Academy, Google labs, Google books, YouTube, Wikipedia and the internet in general make an infinite amount of information, views, writings, speeches, lesson plans, tests and teachings online and usually for free. I am not suggesting that a student does not need some occasional tutoring and coaching. But is that better achieved in a meeting in the professor’s office or online or via a Skype conference? And if the test results are the measure of success, then it is more straight forward to determine who is getting the education job done and who is failing.

Let’s say instead that one managed one’s own degree in Mechanical Engineering that complemented an unpaid (25 hour per week) apprenticeship program. You work on real world problems at the apprenticeship, while studying online materials, and seeing online lectures with some down-to-earth laboratory work. You pay a coach for occasional career and academic, industry contacts and learn what subjects are in demand in the real world from this adviser. And perhaps there develops a whole online tutoring business where the student can get online assistance on technical subjects at a reasonable rate. And finally numerous chat rooms emerge where similarly situated students discuss Solving Linear Equations or understanding Photosynthesis and learn the material in greater depth by virtue of teaching each other the material.

All told the elements of this new college education might consist of the student hiring an advisor for $1,000, paying $5,000 for lab time ($50 an hour times 100 hours), $2,500 for lab exams (5 exams times $500 per exam), $5,000 for online tutoring ($50 an hour times 100 hours) and $1000 for ten standardized final exams at $100 each. For a total of $14,500 for a Mechanical Engineering certificate. I use the term “certificate” because I also question the concept of a four year “degree” - seems like an arbitrary length and appears extended to meet some unknown goal.

Perhaps over four years a student earns certificates in Chemical Engineering, Physics and Accounting and future employers know by virtue of his standardized test scores how well he knows the material.

Now many in the college establishment won’t like this proposal. They will point to the importance of the contacts made at college (as if this is the only way to meet others in your field) and the broad learning (in other words liberal indoctrination) that is achieved on campus. They will point to the importance of the research on America’s college and the fall off in education that will result if we leave education to the greedy private sector. But they will not say a thing about cost. Because the existing college establishment is infinitely more expensive than a lesson learned online at the Khan Academy.

The case against college

2010-12-17T20:13:00.000-08:00

What if President Obama (along with many others) has it backwards? What if America is sending too many people to college?

Change in college - this is what we need to do and think about

2010-11-28T17:18:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to review what we hope to accomplish in changing the way we think about college. Here are our goals:

 Encourage more high school graduates to consider alternatives to college.

 Get more college students to study majors that will serve them well in increasing their ability to move out of their parents house.

 Make the economic return of college degrees more transparent and more available to students.

 Make the US more competitive via a workforce better prepared to meet the demands of the job market.

 Discourage students from going deep into debt to obtain degrees with little or no hope of financial returns. In fact, going deep into debt for any reason is almost always a bad idea!

 Get more people to question the assumption that the more one spends on college the more successful one will be.

 Reduce the cost of college – this does not mean providing more college subsidies. It means putting more economic pressure on colleges and universities to manage their costs much more aggressively.

 Hold colleges and universities to the same financial standards, expectations, and measurements that the rest of our economy has to deal with. In short, they need to provide a better (and more relevant) education at a lower cost.

 Help students who do need to borrow money for college, to do so wisely.

A certification in Electron Microscopes

2010-11-17T10:29:00.000-08:00

Here is a two year certification program in Electron Microscopes at San Joaquin Delta Junior College in Stockton, California.

So, what is an electron microscope? An electron microscope is a special type of microscope used to look at things regular light microscopes cannot. Light has certain wavelengths it travels at... BIG wavelengths. This means you can only see things that are as big as the wavelength of the light. Light microscopes are only able to magnify things around 2,000 times but the wavelength of an electron is much, much smaller. This means you can see extremely small things with an electron microscope can magnify an object several million times.

In this program you learn:
1) Use of the Equipment
2) Sample preparation
3) Practical theory of the Electron Microscope

One can get a certificate specialized in Biological, Materials or both.
And most importantly the job market for trained microscopists is very good and very well paying.

The case for studying almost anything in college – NOT!

2010-11-10T18:54:00.000-08:00

This opinion piece (by a fourth-year architect at Cornell) tries to make the argument that one should study something that you love rather than something practical in college. All things being equal, I would agree that it is an advantage to be studying something one loves, but if there is zero demand for what you love then you need to be one hell of an entrepreneur to create a demand. Or you better learn something practical. Or how about this for an idea: study something practical while you are studying Comparative Literature. Add a double major in Mechanical Engineering to your degree in Medieval History to do your part in reviving our economy while ensuring your own independent future.

The study of English may teach critical thinking and probably does teach one to better express oneself. Yet that is not sufficient. How about also learning advanced engineering mathematics, electrical engineering, biomechanical science, supply and demand theory, logic and statistical analysis in college? There is little evidence that many Liberal Arts majors are spending much time on these more practical studies in their 4-6 years of college today. The argument is, of course, if one is interested in Liberal Arts, then one may not be interested in the more practical fields. That is fair, and probably accurate. But this won’t address the fact that an overwhelming number of our college graduates are woefully unequipped to enter the job market of the 21st century.

If you were lost on a winter backpacking trip, would you rather have learned the basics of starting a fire or be able to debate if Chaucer should be credited as the first author to demonstrate the artistic legitimacy of the vernacular Middle English? I am all for broad learning but if you have to pick only one, you should think long and hard about learning the practical subject first.

Critical thinking is already a competitive advantage for America. On average, we ask “why,” question assumptions, recheck data and test obvious answers more than they do in China.

But these days, it takes so much more. We need to be able to produce products and services competitively in order to sustain our way of life. That means a work force with more engineers, scientists, welders, technicians, inventors, entrepreneurs. And an economy that is geared more to selling goods and services outside our borders than borrowing from the Chinese to make ourselves a bit more comfortable at home.

After World War II, America had over half of the World’s manufacturing capacity. Much of the world was in disarray and much of the world was under the control of wealth-destroying communist tyrannies. It was a much easier time for America to compete. The United States lost far fewer lives and property than most of the developed world and was left standing king of the hill. If you had a college degree, any college degree, you were golden because only about 6% of those older than 25 had college degrees at that time.

By 2005, the percentage of those in the US who graduated from college reached an all-time high of 27.7%.

Today we have an innovative society (partly due to our culture and willingness to try new things and challenge the status quo). But we have gone from an exporting economy to a massive importing society. Our consumers have been willing to borrow to the hilt to buy goods built in China and study Leisure Studies, Dance, Ethnomusicology, and Philosophy at our expensive colleges.

Our economy is lost in the woods right now and up a cold creek. So let’s spend less time on Shakespeare for the time-being and encourage more college students to learn to start a fire that will light up our economy.

How do we measure what colleges are producing?

2010-11-08T06:53:00.000-08:00

One of the main criteria that is being used these days (because it is one of the few statistics we have about the cost-effectiveness of college) is the default rate on student loans. This is a start but it is leading liberals to the wrong conclusion that we need more government intervention. And as a Libertarian I think we need far less government involvement in college.

If we require more transparency about how each college’s specific programs are producing independent and tax-paying citizens, the market will tend to adjust appropriately.

College loan defaults are a function of a number of factors. But first and foremost they are a result of a system that makes costs reasonably transparent but the young consumer indifferent to those costs because he won’t be paying the bill for several years to come. The student has been taught to accept the conventional wisdom that this debt is a great “investment”. And the student has been conditioned to believe that one college major is as valuable as another.

But default rates are also a function of the lack of transparency on what the education produces for the money spent. What is the common test measure that demonstrates the learning achieved? There is none.

Are graduates making the US more competitive, making employers more willing to start a new business in the US rather than in China or India, and creating well-paying jobs and secondary jobs? For example a drug research center is driven by the availability of top scientists. But for each of the scientist jobs, there are many other support jobs from secretaries to janitors that keep the place humming. One “primary” job can support one or more other secondary jobs, all strengthening our economy.

As we look at college loan default rates I think we will find three primary factors that correlate with default rates:

First, is the income level of the college student’s family. Poor students default at higher rates than wealthier students. This is probably the result of less willingness and ability of the family to help with the cost of the college to begin with and probably the result of poor students borrowing a higher percentage of their college costs than wealthier students.

The second factor is how much students borrow. A student that borrows $1,000 over a four year degree has got to be a lower default risk than one that borrows $100,000. Liberals will then suggest that we need to subsidize these poor students more and Libertarians like me will fight hard to stop this ineffective (and usually counterproductive) market intervention.

The third and most important factor is what the student studies at college. Is there a demand for what the student invests his education in? Recent graduates in Chemical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering and Mechanical Engineering are finding well-paying jobs. The same cannot be said for Recreation Management, English and Sociology majors. So we need a much broader discussion on what students are studying. Not all college education is created equal and it matters if there is customer that wants to pay one for that education once you have invested in it.

The “for-profit” colleges are not the only culprits

2010-11-08T06:05:00.000-08:00

This is the story in the Sacramento area of the unintended consequences of the government intervention and subsidization of college. Our politicians decided that more college was the answer for our society. So they made it easier via government subsidized debt for every kid to achieve this “dream”. As if attending college is the goal in itself.

College degrees by themselves are useless; it is the competitive advantage that the educations bestow - the secondary impacts that may or may not make the difference.

Here is the answer. Let’s require all schools (both private and public) to publish the wages and unemployment rates of their graduates. This after all is the result we are seeking - higher wages for a lower investment in education. It is not hard to find out what a college education cost, but it is virtually impossible to see the end product of this “investment”.

The state and federal subsidies have totally distorted the post-high school education market. Most kids don’t care about debt - especially when they are told by “adults” that it is a good deal. You have kids taking out big loans to major in “Office Skills”. $20,000 later they are in deep doodoo.

The “for-profit” colleges are not the only culprits here. Physical Education majors at Duke are not earning much of a return on their education either.

The answer is simple. Require colleges to collect and report the starting salaries for the first five years after graduation. And let’s remove all subsidies from after high school education. Don’t subsidize college loans; don’t subsidize public colleges. Most importantly let’s require the colleges to report with enough granularity down to what students are earning based on what they majored in.

A four-year degree in “Ehtnomusicology” is not a better investment than a one year certificate program in “Medical Assistant” studies. There are far too many ways to waste one’s youth and one’s future financial freedom by studying a subject that has absolutely no customers.

College debt should be paid off at the age of fifty-three

2010-11-01T18:10:00.000-07:00

“In the four years it took to earn a business degree at Boston University, Tyson Hunter of Seattle ran up a debt of $152,000 in student loans. After graduation, he was hired by a market research company at a salary of $40,000 a year, well above what the average graduate makes right out of college. But his loan payments of $1,000 a month make up a third of his take-home pay. When he finally pays off his student loans, he will be fifty-three years old and will have paid $300,000 in principal and interest. To save money on rent, he has moved into his mother’s condo.” "The Five-Year Party" by Craig Brandon

The concept of "grit" and college

2010-10-31T12:56:00.000-07:00

An excellent article about the importance of hard work and “grit” in success. “In 1869, Francis Galton published ‘Hereditary Genius,’ his landmark investigation into the factors underlying achievement. Galton’s method was straightforward: he gathered as much information as possible on dozens of men with ‘very high reputations,’ including poets, politicians, and scientists. That’s when Galton noticed something rather surprising: success wasn’t simply a matter of intelligence or talent. Instead, Galton concluded that eminent achievement was only possible when ‘ability combined with zeal and the capacity for hard labour.’”

But other key messages are also relevant to success and college. It turns out that those that can focus on specific learning and activities (rather than trying to do it all or learn it all) have the highest chance of success. It’s about selecting a specific goal off in the future and sticking to it. And hopefully the “goal” provides a reasonable chance to support an independent adulthood.

“Grit isn’t just about stubborn perseverance - it’s also about finding a goal that can sustain our interest for years at a time. Consider two children learning to play the piano, each with the same level of raw talent and each expending the same effort toward musical training. However, while one child focuses on the piano, the other child experiments with the saxophone and cello. The kid who sticks with one instrument is demonstrating grit. Maybe it’s more fun to try something new, but high levels of achievement require a certain single-mindedness.”

“While parents and teachers have long emphasized the importance of being well-rounded - this is why most colleges require students to take courses in all the major disciplines, from history to math - success in the real world may depend more on the development of narrow passions.” And I would add, “narrow passions” that have some customer demand willing to pay for them.

It really calls into question the whole notion of the classic Liberal Arts Education in college. One studies plenty of interesting subjects except specialized, technical or practical knowledge that would actually help the student land a good paying job. History is fascinating, Political Science is intriguing, Gender Studies is titillating and Ethnomusicology is of interest to some. But unless you are so dedicated to one of these fields that you are on in the top 1-2 % you have virtually no chance of landing a related job.

The Five-Year Party

2010-10-28T18:12:00.000-07:00

‎"The Five-Year Party" a very good read for parents considering the college experience for their kids.

This is typical: "As my files grew, it began to appear that a large segment of the higer education industry was involved in a massive fraud in which parents, students, and taxpayers were being hoodwinked into paying for one thing - a college education - but were actually getting something entirely different - five year (or longer) party where education is no longer required.”

The author Craig Brandon’s major thesis is that our colleges are carried away with the notion that the student is the “customer”. And you must do anything possible to please the customer. So when the customer asks for less home work, less reading, easier tests, and more comfortable dormitories this customer feedback becomes the goal of the institution. And to do this they have vastly increased their costs and created an atmosphere where professors only survive by dumbing down the curriculum and inflating grades.

Reducing the cost of college by taking AP classes in high school.

2010-10-23T12:06:00.000-07:00

One of the best ways for a family to reduce the cost of college is to get it free during high school. By taking Advanced Placement (AP) classes in high school it is possible to enter your first college well into your first year. And these units are almost free - the standardized exams are currently $87 each.

This curriculum in the US is sponsored by the College Board and offers standardized courses and exams to high school students that are generally equivalent to college courses.

AP tests are scored on a 5-4-3-2-1 numeric scale (with 5 being the highest score). Each college has a different policy on the score required to obtain college credit but generally a score of at least 3 or 4 is required.

From Biology, Calculus, Chemistry, to Statistics there are about 30 courses offered US wide although very few high schools offer all of these programs.

Why is the Department of Education picking on for-profit colleges?

2010-10-23T10:23:00.000-07:00

“Education Secretary Arne Duncan will step up oversight of federal student financial-aid programs after an undercover government investigation found deceptive marketing practices at 15 for-profit colleges.”

Why is the government only prosecuting for-profit colleges? The answer is that 1) they dislike the notion of free-enterprise rather than state-managed business and 2) non-profit and public colleges and universities have far too much political clout to attack. This is a classic case of selective prosecution for political reasons.

Let's take a hard look at all colleges and the promises they are making about the job prospects for their graduates.

The answers to college loan abuse are simple: 1) Make all colleges and universities private or non-profit and get the government out of this business. 2) Remove all government involvement in student loans and student loan guarantees. 3) Make college loans discharable in bankruptcy just like most other consumer loans. This by the way will make them more expensive witthout all of the subsidies

Let’s turn the college loan business over to the private sector and the colleges and universities that are in the education business. We would end up with far less expensive colleges and college educations that were also more responsive to the job market. Colleges would produce more grads with specialized technical training and far fewer English majors. Loans would be harder to get and a fundamental question would be the graduate’s ability to pay back the loan with the education promised.

There are 18,000 parking lot attendants in the U.S. with college degrees.

2010-10-23T08:35:00.000-07:00

“There are 18,000 parking lot attendants in the U.S. with college degrees. There are 5,000 janitors in the U.S. with PhDs. In all, some 17 million college-educated Americans have jobs that don't require their level of education.”

I don’t want to demean folks getting jobs. I think it is an even bigger problem when folks remain unemployed because they refuse to take a job because it “is below them”. From my angle, if you need a job then any honest work is a blessing.

But this article points to the generalization about college that is the weakness in the discussion. Not all college education is created equally. A degree in Art History or Recreation Management today rarely generates a related job for the college graduate after graduation. But high school kids head off to college, financed by debt and think: “They wouldn’t be offering this degree if graduates weren’t getting jobs.” Colleges are not financing many of these college educations (the taxpayer is) and so they never face the pain of their graduates not being able to pay back the loans, when their grads have received an interesting but not-in-demand skill set.

We need more Science and Engineering graduates to gain a competitive advantage in the world economy. But today only 5% of US college graduates major in engineering and of those half are from outside the US. We need folks that are trained in a number of technical subjects from science to electronic microscope repair. We don’t need more Celtic History majors to reclaim our manufacturing advantage.

85% of college grads moving back home with their parents.

2010-10-22T20:07:00.003-07:00

85% of college grads moving back home with their parents.

If only we can get the last 15% to major in Gender Studies, Medieval History or Sociology then we can get them back at home living off their parents as well.

2010-10-22T20:07:00.001-07:00

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/pf/boomerang_kids_move_home/index.htm

You will get accepted to college

2010-10-19T09:01:00.001-07:00

"The truth is, unless you really screwed up in high school by doing time in prison, or lacking at least a GED, you will be accpeted to a college. It may not be one of the top name-brand schools, but a college will accept you. They are seriously competing with colleges and universities to get your business." April Norhanian in "College Is For Suckers"

College as an assisted-living facility!

2010-10-19T08:49:00.000-07:00

"Most college books and guidance counselors urge students to tour campuses at colleges they're thinking about attending so that they can see the campus and 'get a feel for the place and how they'd fit in.' What does this mean? Are we trying to find a place to get an education or looking for an assisted-living facility?"

Zac Bissonnette in "Debt-Free U"

"What are universities for anyway?" Peter Hitchens

2010-10-18T07:43:00.000-07:00

Award-winning British columist and author Peter Hitchens questions the value of his three years at the University of York where he majored in Politics.

He states: "We seem to accept without question that it is a good thing that the young should go through this dubious experience. Worse, employers seem to have fallen completely for the idea that a university degree is essential – when it is often a handicap."

In Europe far more of the expense of college and university is bourne by the government than in the US.

It is time to send fewer kids to college, reduce the expense of these institutions and get far more practical about the education they provide.

What good does it do our economy to graduate more Recreation Management, Drama and English majors?

2010-10-12T15:21:00.000-07:00

“Finishing the First Lap,” an examination of students who leave after their freshmen year by the American Institutes of Research, found billions in state and federal aid and grants are spent on students who drop out. Nationwide, these state subsidies average nearly $10,000 per student per year and the federal subsides are about $2,000 per student per year (according to this report).

The report sites that “The Obama administration is calling for the United States to regain its status as the nation with the highest concentration of college-educated adults in the world.” And of course when you start off with the wrong goal, you get the wrong study.

Here would be a better goal for the Administration to articulate: “The United States regains its status as the nation with the highest number of college graduates that are immediately moving into high paying jobs in the private sector. Recent college graduates are making it far more attractive for private business to start and retain their operations in the US rather than moving jobs overseas. And our colleges and universities are achieving this with increasing efficiency and at dramatically lower costs. We are continuing to decrease the government subsidies for college and more high school students are finding technical programs and other job training programs a better fit at a much lower cost than traditional four year colleges.”

What good does it do our economy to graduate more Recreation Management, Drama and English majors? Graduates with degrees in “silly” majors are generally not making the US more competitive and if they drop out after one year it only cost the taxpayers on average $12,000. If they take six years to graduate then they have cost the taxpayers $72,000. So for students that are just marking time in college, under our current subsidies the earlier they drop out the better. Even better yet - maybe more high school graduates should skip four year college altogether and pursue practical technical education that will make them and the US more competitive.

Robert Lerman, an American University economics professor who, like me questions promoting college for all, said "Getting them to go a second year might waste even more money."

The study reports that “The United States spends more on higher education than any other nation in the world. We spend about twice as much per student as the United Kingdom, Germany, or Japan and about three times as much as most other industrialized countries in Europe and Asia, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Factbook.”

Eric Fingerhut, chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents on the other hand has his priorities all wrong and called the problem (of college drop outs) “job one” for schools. “It is obviously the most important thing that a campus has to work on today,” he said.

We think fewer kids should go to four year colleges right out of high school. And more important than the graduation rates is what these students study. We need more engineering and science graduates even if these are harder courses and may have a lower graduation rate. We need fewer Gender Studies and Sociology majors, especially if 100% of these non-competitive grads actually graduate.

The most illiquid investment on the planet - college

2010-10-03T14:38:00.000-07:00

"A college education is the most illiquid investment on the planet. Let's say that you buy a hour or car. A few years into owning the item, you realize that you really can't afford it. In the case of a house, you can sell the item and recoup - in the vast majority of markets throughout history - a large portion of what you put into it. If you can't, you can do a short sale and the lender might forgive the balance on the mortgage. This can harm your credit score but all in all, you'll be okay." Zac Bissonnette in "Debt-Free U".

The vicious cycle in public education

2010-10-02T10:21:00.000-07:00

Whenever the Left sees a problem they see a responsibility for government to solve the problem or take over the service. And when they do this, they kill choice and frequently they kill the chances for the private sector and the public themselves to solve their own problems. The Left never recognizes the unintended consequences of their involvement and usually claims that only more intervention will fix the problems caused by their earlier interventions.

Long ago, the US established a system where local communities provided (K-12) education. And then the states stepped in and started messing with the structure and finally the federal government stepped in to “help”. Politicians had the best of intentions but their dominance stifled competition and resulted in fewer choices, higher costs and poorer education for our young.

We have always had private schools providing K-12 education as well. But if your kids went to a private school you paid for it in addition to paying your taxes rather than getting a “free” education” for your kids at the local public school. But it is incredibly tough to compete against the big, bad and free public education system (and especially the powerful unions) so only the really dedicated have tried to compete and many times these choices are driven by parents aspiration for a religious element in their kid’s traditional education.

Recently we have seen an increase in home-schooling, where parents take it on themselves to provide a better education for their kids because they are so disappointed in their other few options. But what you haven’t seen much of (other than via charter schools) is real innovation in our education universe. Our classrooms are functioning very much the way they did 50 years ago with the major exception that many parents have not taught their children their ABCs or how to count by the time their children show up for the first day at school.

And when we overlay the impact of teachers unions over the last several decades, public schools have gotten ever more expensive and virtually incapable of adapting. If there were more private sector alternatives (especially funded via a voucher system) then the expensive poor-performing schools would shut down and get replaced over time by the more productive and mostly private schools. Teachers’ unions would not have such monopoly power in negotiating their contracts.

But here is the vicious cyle. The worse the performance of our public institutions the more State and Federal politicians want to take control, the more they want to spend and the less they actually innovate. We need strong private competition to get more done with less. If the teachers’ unions can make it in the private sector fine but I doubt it.

Guidance Counselors

2010-09-22T15:48:00.000-07:00

"(High School) Guidance Counselors are considered most successful when they get students into name-brand schools. The problem is that, in all probablity, your guidance counselor has literally no training as a financial planner and is ill equipped to advise your kids on the long-term ramifications of large debt loads, much less to counsel you on depleted retirement savings accounts and home equity." Zac Bissonnette in his new book "Debt-Free U".

Making college the most pleasant experience

2010-09-21T08:32:00.000-07:00

Parents – as you send your kids off to Club College do not forget to pay for “keeping their life simplified” with Dormaid at www.Dormaid.com. This service provides dorm-room cleaning, laundry services and beverage delivery. Don’t make your kids late for the college party because you forced them to do clean their own dorm rooms.

What college did for April Northanian

2010-09-21T08:19:00.000-07:00

“As a two-time college graduate, my work experience encompasses a wide range of vocations including: cocktail waitress, real estate agent, actress, collections agent, fitness instructor, college admissions representative, dot-com marketing manager, web designer, ESL teacher, and blackjack dealer. I know from my own experience, and that of my friends that many people with a college degree rarely work within their field of study.

Like many people, I naively followed the path of a costly college education without knowing if a college degree would actually help me be successful. As a result, I (like many others) owe a butt-load of money to student loan debt.”

April Northanian in her outstanding book "College is for Suckers"

What does one study for a $218,120 major in Women's Studies at Vassar College?

2010-09-18T19:20:00.000-07:00

For $54,530 per year ($218,120 for four years) here is one post-high school option for those lucky enough to be accepted to Vassar College. Of course they offer financial aid, which only means that someone else is paying for it like the US government or alumni. Or one borrows to foot the bill.

If one was to use this $218,120 education to major in Women’s Studies, here are some of the classes that one might take in helping make America more competive in the global marketplace:

110. Gender, Social Problems and Social Change
This course introduces students to a variety of social problems using insights from political science, sociology, and gender studies. We begin with an exploration of the sociological perspective, and how social problems are defined as such. We then examine the general issues of inequalities based on economic and employment status, racial and ethnic identity, and gender and sexual orientation. We apply these categories of analysis to problems facing the educational system and the criminal justice system. As we examine specific issues, we discuss political processes, social movements, and individual actions that people have used to address these problems.

130a and b. Introduction to Women's Studies
Multidisciplinary study of the scholarship on women, with an introduction to feminist theory and methodology. Includes contemporary and historical experiences of women in private and public spaces. Examination of how the concept of women has been constructed in literature, science, the media, and other institutions, with attention to the way the construction intersects with nationality, race, class, and sexuality.

160b. Issues in Feminism: Bodies and Texts
This course is an introduction to issues in feminism with a focus on the female body and its representations. We read a variety of texts and analyze visuals from film, performance, art, cartoons, and advertising. Particular focus is given to women's bodies in art, popular culture and the media, and the intersection of race, class, and gender. This is a writing-focused course. In addition to three traditional critical essays, students experiment with other forms of writing such as journals, comic strips, film review, op-ed essays, and responses to visuals. This course stresses the development of analytical thinking, clarity of expression, and originality.

203. Women in Antiquity
Greek and Roman literary and historical accounts abound with vividly drawn women such as Helen, Antigone, Medea, Livia, and Agrippina, the mother of Nero. But how representative were such figures of the daily lives of women throughout Greek and Roman antiquity? This course investigates the images and realities of women in the ancient Greek and Roman world, from the Greek Late Bronze Age (c. 1200 BCE) to the Roman Empire (up to the III c. CE) by juxtaposing evidence from literature, historical sources, and archaeological material. Throughout, the course examines the complex ways in which ancient women interacted with the institutions of the state, the family, religion, and the arts. Ms. Olsen.

204. Gender Issues in Economics
An analysis of gender in education, earnings, employment, and the division of labor within the household. Topics include a study of occupational segregation, discrimination, the role of "protective legislation" in the history of labor law, and effects of changes in the labor market of the U.S. We also study the economics of marriage, divorce, and fertility. A comparative study of gender roles in other parts of the world is the final topic in the course.

205b. Topics in Social Psychology
Prejudice and Persuasion: This course introduces students to the discipline of social psychology via the in-depth exploration of two areas of inquiry: prejudice and persuasion. A central goal of this course is to advance your understanding of the processes underlying social perception interaction and influence. To this end, we shall examine classic modern, and implicit forms of sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, and antisemitism, as well as explore ways of reducing prejudice and discrimination. We shall examine the mechanisms underlying effective persuasion techniques by using examples from advertising, propaganda, political interest groups, and hate-groups to illustrate research findings. In addition to exposing you to the relevant research and theories, this course should help you to develop ways of conceptualizing some of the social psychological phenomena you and others confront every day. Finally, this course should increase your appreciation of the central role that empirical research plays in psychological explanations of human social behavior.

218b. Literature, Gender, and Sexuality
This course considers matters of gender and sexuality in literary texts, criticism, and theory. The focus varies from year to year, and may include study of a historical period, literary movement, or genre; constructions of masculinity and femininity; sexual identities; or representations of gender in relation to race and class. Topic for 2010/11a: Queer of Color Critique. This course considers what interventions the construction "queer of color" makes possible for queer theory, LGBT scholarship and activism, and different models of ethnic studies. We will assess the value and limitations of queer theory's "subjectless critique" in doing cultural and political work. What kind of complications (or contradictions) does the notion "queer of color" present for subjectless critique? How might queer of color critique inform political organizing? Particular attention is devoted to how "queer" travels. Toward this end, students determine what conflicts are presently shaping debates around sexuality in their own communities and consider how these debates may be linked to different regional, national or transnational politics. Throughout the semester, we evaluate what queer means and what kind of work it enables. Is it an identity or an anti-identity? A verb, a noun, an adjective? An analytic mode or a kind of literacy?

220a. Medieval and Renaissance Culture: Women in Renaissance Culture (1)
Topic for 2010/11a: Before Feminism. From the fifteenth century until the end of the seventeenth century, European women and men argued about the nature and status of woman and their debates still engage us today. These discussions were the result of a number of critical developments, which included urbanization, increased female literacy, the rise of print culture, and Protestant and Catholic Reform. Furthermore, women, such as Isabella of Castile, Elizabeth I, Catherine de Medici, and Christina of Sweden, became powerful rulers, as a result of hereditary accidents, which gave greater urgency to the definition of woman's nature. Writers and intellectuals raised questions about woman's essence, her lineage from Eve, and her proper position in society and family. While many accepted the more conventional patriarchal framework, others resisted and challenged the denigration of woman through writing, legal action and work. We read writers and thinkers from the writer and poet Christine de Pisan to the playwright Aphra Behn. Literature, political treatises, and polemical works reveal that the discussion shifted from theological to biological definitions of woman. Studying the question of woman in this era leads us to ask what was "feminist" and "feminism" in the past and even today.

231b. Women Making Music
A study of women's involvement in Western and non-Western musical cultures. Drawing on recent work in feminist musicology and ethnomusicology, the course studies a wide range of music created by women, both past and present. It explores such topics as musical instruments and gender, voice and embodiment, access to training and performance opportunities, and representations of women musicians in art and literature. Ms. Libin.

250a. Feminist Theory
The central purpose of the course is to understand a variety of theoretical perspectives in feminism - including liberal, radical, socialist, psychoanalytic and postmodern perspectives. We explore how each of these feminist perspectives is indebted to more 'mainstream' theoretical frameworks (for example, to liberal political theory, Marxism, and psychoanalysis). We also examine the ways in which each version of feminist theory raises new questions and challenges for these 'mainstream' theories. We attempt to understand the theoretical resources that each of these perspectives provides the projects of feminism, how they highlight different aspects of women's oppression and offer a variety of different solutions. We look at the ways in which issues of race, class and sexuality figure in various theoretical feminist perspectives and consider the divergent takes that different theoretical perspectives offer on issues such as domestic violence, pornography, housework and childcare, economic equality, and respect for cultural differences.

251a. Global Feminism
The course focuses on several different forms of work that women , mostly in Third World countries, do in order to earn their livelihood within the circuits of the contemporary global economy. The types of work we examine include factory work, home-based work, sex work, office work, care work, informal sector work and agricultural labor. We consider how these forms of work both benefit and burden women, and how women's work interacts with gender roles, reinforcing or transforming them. We also consider some of the general aspects of economic globalization and how it affects poor working women; migration within and across national borders, urbanization, the spread of a culture of consumption, and ecological devastation.

276. Gender and Social Space
This course explores the inter-relation of gender and key spatial forms and practices such as the home, the city, the hotel, migration, shopping, community activism, and walking at night. The course draws on feminist theoretical work from diverse fields such as geography, architecture, anthropology and urban studies not only to begin to map the gendered divisions of the social world but also to understand gender itself as a spatial practice.

288b. Constructing the Second Wave
Second-wave feminism was a political movement imagined and disseminated in the fiction and poetry of the era and energized by the recovery of a tradition of women's writing. Novelists and poets challenged traditional models of femininity while the presses founded in the 1970s and 1980s republished earlier women writers and assembled anthologies of new writing. Feminist bookstores provided a central location for the meeting of women as well as the sale of books. This course examines bestsellers of the movement and more experimental fiction, particularly feminist science fiction, within the context of the feminist presses and the founding of Ms. magazine. Writers may include, Lisa Alther, Margaret Atwood, Marilyn French, June Jordan, Maxine Hong Kingston, Ursula LeGuin, Audre Lorde, Tillie Olsen, Grace Paley, Marge Piercy, Adrienne Rich, and Alice Walker. Ms. Robertson.

College student loan default rates are going up!

2010-09-17T15:40:00.000-07:00

Here is the press release about student default rates for college loans.

Here are a few observations about the release:

1) Although the data reflects the year 2008 (loans became due between Oct 1, 2007 and Sep 30, 2008) the Department of Education does not get around to announcing the results until September 13, 2010. You can count on the Federal government solving yesterday’s problems with this lightning fast analysis.

2) The default rates increased from 5.9 to 6 percent for public institutions, from 3.7 to 4 percent for private institutions, and from 11 to 11.6 percent for for-profit schools. But these default rates only reflect how many borrowers did not make the required payments on their loans in the first two years when the payments were due. This is like only counting loan default rates for mortgages if the borrower defaults in the first two years? Are you kidding me? Why would the government manipulate the findings like this? Obviously the default rate would be substantially higher if we consider if the loans get paid back in total over time versus the payment terms of the contracts.

3) The data does not show the amount of the loans being defaulted on. So student A may be graduating from Las Vegas Academy of Healing Arts with a certificate in Massage Therapy and that school has a 40% default rate but the graduates on average borrowed $10,000. So on average the government loses $4,000 per student loan (40% times $10,000). Where student B may be graduating from Rutgers with a BA in Sociology with a default rate of 10% but an average student debt of $100,000. So in the second case the average default cost per student is $10,000 (10% times $100,000). So let’s look at the total and average cost per student in these subsidies - not just the average default rates.

4) The conclusion stated in the government’s press release is that “This data confirms what we already know: that many students are struggling to pay back their student loans during very difficult economic times.” Could it be more a matter of too few engineering and science graduates and far too many folks studying at the Las Vegas Academy of Healing Arts?

5) As much as anything we need to break down the data in many more ways (by degree, by SAT scores upon entering the school and by overall cost of the education). Better yet let’s get the government out of the college student loan business all together.

Obama proposes more college subsidies.

2010-09-08T13:18:00.000-07:00

Here is what Obama had to say in Ohio today about college education.

“We see an America where every citizen has the skills and training to compete with any worker in the world. That's why we've set a goal to once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020.”

“That's why we're fighting to extend the child tax credit, and make permanent our new college tax credit. Because if we do, it will mean $10,000 in tuition relief for each child going to four years of college.”

So Mr. President only 5% of our US college graduates today are engineers (compared to 21% in China and 19% in the European Union). And many of this meager 5% are foreign students who will take this valuable education back home to make their own countries to make them better at competing with the US. Instead of producing Science & Engineering graduates our “send everyone to college” approach is producing more Recrational Management, Physical Education and History majors. Who really thinks that sending more kids to college to study Ethomusicology, Sociology or Gender Studies is making our country more competitive? We need more graduating engineers and scientists to pull the rest of the economy along. The problem is when politicians (many of whom were Political Science majors in college) set up these subsidies and “programs” we will end up with more Sociology and Music History majors.

Let’s reduce the subsidies for college not increase them. And if we insist on subsidizing college at all then let’s narrow it down to Science and Engineering.

Obama also is talking about investing in our infrastructure. So are we going to use all the new graduate Classical Civilization majors to check the loads and structural integrity of our new bridges and dams when we don’t have enough Civil Engineers? Or will we be importing engineering assistance from India to build our new roads while financing the roads with loans from China?

The downward spiral of college subsidies

2010-09-08T08:51:00.000-07:00

College student debt now exceeds credit card debt in America.

But it is such an important “investment” by our government? Maybe not.

College costs keep increasing at a faster rate than everything else. So politicians predictably try to subsidize the cost of college even more so that students don’t get priced out of going to college. Most of these subsidies take the form of loans and loan guarantees.

But what is the result? Instead of accepting the law of supply and demand, these increased college subsidies allow colleges and universities to notch up the price of college by the amount of the subsidy. That’s right; the benefits of these subsidies go to the college establishment (professors, administrators, football coaches and janitors). The subsidies relax the push back (and lower demand) that normally results when prices get too high. So it is a vicious cycle; subsidize college more; the cost of college increases enough to absorb the new subsidy; and then subsidize college even more to make up for the increased prices caused by the earlier subsidies.

The end result is a bubble like we had in the housing market. But instead of having neighborhoods full of empty foreclosed homes you have ghettos of young adults with degrees in Psychology or Sociology, $100,000 in student debt and no job prospects that would ever make it possible to pay off these loans. Not to mention the US government holding billions in unpaid student loan guarantees that penalize our grandchildren.

But this is only part of the problem with all of these subsidies. The silly college curriculums like Gender Studies, Sociology & Ethnomusicology get the same subsidies as Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering and Accounting. At least the degrees in science and engineering have a chance of making the US more competitive.

And since so many families don’t really question what Johnny wants to study at college, we have far too many of Johnny’s friends spending six years of tax-payer and family-subsidized college education with little learning that will translate into a more competitive US. The average student cares simply about having enough cash flow (with loans and parent subsidies) to get though another year in college. The future pain of being deep in debt with no marketable job skills is the least of an 18 year-old’s worries.

As a country we need to discourage student debt and we need to start reducing subsidies for college. We might need to rely less on the traditional lecture format and find far more efficient teaching methods like computer-assisted and on-line learning. $160,000 degrees in Medieval German History are not doing the trick today.

Debt-free U

2010-08-30T16:52:00.000-07:00

This piece on NBC Today show this morning is an interview with the 22 year old college senior titled "Debt-free U". Zac Bissonnette explains how he got through college without borrowing and how most college students can do the same. Several good ideas and much common sense.

What does a Sociology major study?

2010-08-29T19:55:00.000-07:00

I make fun of Liberal Arts degrees so frequently that I decided to delve more deeply into one such major, Sociology, to understand what students in that major at the University of Southern Indiana might learn. Here are some of the course requirements for this “degree”.

SOC 121 Principles of Sociology: An examination of social dynamics and consequences of social life. The main topics are culture, social groups, socialization, deviance, social stratification, race relations, gender, and family.

SOC 225 Criminology : A consideration of criminality, its nature and extent, particularly in the United States. Includes analysis of the etiology (for those college grads like me that don’t know what this word is, it is the study of causation) of criminal behavior, the sociology of criminal law, and societal reaction to criminals.

SOC 231 Social Problems: Examination of the nature, extent, causes, and effects of selected contemporary social problems, such as gender, sexual behavior, drugs, environment, economic inequality, racial inequality, crime, and education.

SOC 335 Juvenile Delinquency: Definitions and interpretations; theories of causation and prevention; organization and functions of community agencies and institutions including police, courts, and probation services.

SOC 345 Simulated Games of Society: The study of society through the use of simulated games. The power structure, the social class system, the justice system, sex roles, different cultures, whole societies, ghettos, economic systems, municipal politics, and national political parties are simulated in classroom games to provide the student with experiential knowledge of these processes.

SOC 375 Social Change: An investigation of change in cultural patterns, behavioral relationships, and social structure. Topics comprise social movements, work, urbanization, family, computerization, social organizations and other aspects of American society.

SOC 415 Sociology of the Environment: A sociological approach to understanding the interaction of society and the natural environment. It focuses on social causes and consequences of environmental problems and mitigating actions taken toward them. It also addresses inequality in the distribution of environmental problems.

SOC 421 Race and Ethnicity: A sociological exploration of the origins and influence of race, ethnicity, and cultural/national identity in American and international stratification systems.

SOC 431 Gender and Society: An exploration of gender patterns. The course focuses on gender differences. It analyzes the causes and the consequences of these differences for social life, including the various social inequalities between males and females that have become institutionalized in American society.

SOC 441 Social Movements: Consideration of social movements as attempts to establish a new order of life. Analyzes states of development from inception to the achievement of full institutionalization. Specific social movements are examined such as the labor movement, the women’s movement, and racial, religious, and political movements.

SOC 463 Wealth and Poverty: An examination of social stratification in U.S. society with comparisons to other countries. The course explores different indicators of inequality, the social class system, theories of inequality, poverty, social mobility, and legitimation of inequality. It also explores racial and gender stratification.

Do you think there might be a certain liberal spin and propaganda to all of these classes that explains why the criminal is in fact the victim? I can find you many of these graduates that are looking for a job. Do you need this skill set for your business?

A Bachelors in Fine Arts pays off....

2010-08-29T07:11:00.000-07:00

UK study finds that one in four lap dancers have a college degree. Usually in the Arts.

And these dancers make an average of about $350 per shift thereby elevating the stats for college graduates for those arguing that “college grads make more than those that do not graduate from college.”

Of course another argument for attending college (even if you are going to take a silly degree) is that one meets the right kind of potential life partners – and that is clearly the case for these lap dancers.

Have you heard the disclaimer “past performance does not guarantee future results”?

2010-08-22T20:39:00.000-07:00

“According to the U.S. Census Bureau, people who graduate with bachelor’s degrees will earn nearly twice as much over the course of their careers as those who complete only high school.” What a bunch of drivel!

Have you heard the disclaimer “past performance does not guarantee future results”? The general media totally misses this concept.

Too many writers forgot to attend their logic and statistics classes. There is a difference between correlation and causation. And the past does not predict the future.

You tell me who is hiring those recent grads in Ethnomusicology, Sociology, History, Gender Studies and Art History? The answer is no one. That is right; there are no jobs of any kind for these grads other than fast food. And I don’t want to belittle fast food as a career because a manager at a McDonalds will surely make more than most of the Drama majors out there and without going $100,000 into debt.

More defaults on college student loans is a symptom of the bigger problem

2010-08-16T10:49:00.000-07:00

More defaults on college student loans is a symptom of the bigger problem (massive government intervention in college finance and an industry that has learned to depend on these subsidies).

Truth in advertising is a critical component of what is being questioned. But this should hold true just as much at the University of California just as much as for-profit colleges.

Every college should be required to track and publish the starting salaries and number of graduates placed after graduation. By major.

Then we absolutely need to start cutting off funding to those institutions that do not create graduates that are sought in the job market. Actually we need to get the government out of these subsidies all together but that is a much longer putt.

The percentage of those defaulting on student loans is only one of the necessary criteria. The other critical factor is how much has the stuend borrowed? In the example in this story this young lady defaulted after borrowing $15,000. This is probably representative of the defaults of many of the one and two year certification programs. But if 50% of those borrowing $15,000 is a problem, how about if 30% of those borrowing $100,000 default after their History degree from Duke?

The problem is far from confined to the for-profit college industry.

Petroleum Engineers earn higher salaries than Sociology majors!

2010-08-15T17:24:00.000-07:00

Best Undergrad College Degrees by Salary according to payscale.com

Petroleum Engineering is tops in college majors that lead to high salaries. I have a feeling
they forgot to check on Ethnomusicology graduates in this survey.

Center for College Affordability & Producitivity

2010-08-15T16:16:00.000-07:00

Here is the web site for the Center for College Affordability & Productivity. This group is trying to focus attention on making our colleges and universities more productive and more affordable.

They also have a listing of the colleges that are the best value. Interestingly the three US Service Academies score highest on this scorecard. In their rankings they also have some silly criteria like "Does Johnny enjoy his classes?" This conjures up the notion that Johnny is in a very comfortable setting, surrounded by pretty coeds and not being pressured by the professor with any questions that are too hard for the lad.

The methodology does have one criteria that is quite good which is "student loan default rate". This measure tends to combine what is bad (going deep into debt) with what is good (making enough to pay off your student debt).

Academic Bankruptcy

2010-08-15T14:56:00.000-07:00

New York Times editorial about the need for colleges and universities to change their model.

Another silly article on college majors!

2010-08-11T07:07:00.000-07:00

This kind of drivel is common in today's media about what college major to study.

The title "Five "impractical" College Majors That Just Might Make You Rich." How about the altnerative title - "Purchase 200,000 Lottery Tickets Rather Than Majoring In English If You Want To Get Rich." After all if you win the lottery you won't need a job offer after six years in college.

The writer goes on to state "in reality, what matters is not so much what you major in, but what you decide to do with your degree and your career." But what if you spend six years majoring in Sociology or Medieval History and can not get a single job interview related to your major?

The author of this article provides zero evidence to support his hypothesis. It is pure idiocy through and through and undoubtedly written by an English Major.

CNN article about College degrees that do not pay

2010-08-07T15:46:00.000-07:00

This CNN article goes out of its way to discuss people doing what they love even though the pay is lousy. It discusses 9 college majors and examples of each where the individual is satisfied with his/her job but is getting paid quite modestly.

This article has two major fallacies. First, most of the graduates in these majors don't end up with any job at all related to their college major. This article implies that you may end up poorly paid but at least you will get a job. Not the case. For most of these majors you will simply be out fighting it out with high schoold grads for a job at Home Depot having nothing to do with your college experience.

The second fallacy here is that for many of these jobs, no degree at all is required. In many of these cases these folks would have had close to the same chance of landing the job as a high school graduate.

Is College the only way to expand one's intellect?

2010-08-06T16:47:00.000-07:00

Two very good days of articles on college in the Los Angeles Free Press. Here is the publisher’s wrap-up on the subject yesterday.

I of course never get tired of this subject so here are a few additional (but far from final) thoughts on college. First, I question the belief that college is the only or best way to build one’s intellect. It is one way to expand your horizons but there are alternatives to college that may do the job at a far lower cost. Today, it is reasonably easy to get an understanding of virtually any subject online (check out the Khan Academy which is free and where one can learn the basics of anything from molecular formulas to electron configuration). Compare the information available to those learning from Khan versus the limited number of books that Abe Lincoln had to work with. It is also fairly easy to engage in an online debate with those on the other side on most subjects as well. So college is not the only place to have a good argument or dig into and learn about a tough subject.

With some private colleges charging up to $220,000 (room and board) over four years and fewer students actually graduating in only four years, are these institutions providing enough intellectual stimulation and development for the dollar spent? You might remind me that there are scholarships and grants that may reduce the student’s cost - but this simply means that somebody else is paying the tab. A few might even suggest that college is worth it at any price.

Some are just not ready to take on certain subjects when they are 18-22 years old, so I suggest that college might be better after a year or two of another experience immediately after high school (like work, starting a business or living overseas and learning another language). If a student is not at all interested in learning about the basics of logic, the minimum sample size of a statistically significant set, or how best to put one’s hypothesis into words, then that individual is unlikely to retain much from simply hanging around the classroom as the discussion takes place around him.

The classroom model is an old and expensive model for learning. And this is still very much today’s college model. Not to mention that at many prestigious universities the instructor is an assistant and not the full professor. The full professor (who is advertised, sometimes misleadingly as the instructor) is not teaching on a daily basis because she is actively engaged in research or writing rather than daily classroom work.

I clearly accept the notion that college has value but its value depends on what one studies and what one pays for the experience. And like other investments that require resources and time, one should be searching for an excellent payback for a smaller outlay. Cost matters and as long as college costs and investment return go unquestioned (like buying a home was just a few years ago) then the cost will continue to inflate dramatically, and our politicians will fight back with more subsidies rather than questioning or changing the basic model.

Critical thinking matters. Logical thought matters. The ability to express oneself both in writing and in speech matter. But cost also matters. And setting up oneself so that you can earn a decent living in tomorrow’s world really matters.

College is one of many paths from adolescence to independence but today too many Americans blindly assume that college is a must, and an investment that will pay dividends at any price.

Accepting the college investment in all circumstances and at any cost especially when one goes deep into debt for an interesting but non job-producing major (Ethnomusicology, Sociology, Medieval History, French Poetry) needs far more questioning. And not just for your friends’ kids but your children as well. College is just one of many options that the young may consider and the choic needs to be questioned critically and compared to the alternatives on a student by student basis.

The questions they ask?

2010-08-06T16:37:00.000-07:00

Just received from a friend....

The graduate with a science degree asks, "Why does it work?"
The graduate with an engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"
The graduate with an accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?"
The graduate with an arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"

I do not think higher education should be protected in any budget cut.

2010-07-25T19:44:00.000-07:00

I have been the source of consternation recently with some folks because I do not think higher education should be protected in any budget cut / balancing discussions. In fact, I suggest higher education might be one the first places governments should look to balance strained budgets and strip inefficiencies. My basic point is that formal higher education can, to a greater extent than other core government services, be postponed with fewer consequences. You postpone basic road repairs and the cost is often higher later than taking care of it now (e.g., pot holes, clearing drainage). The same goes for public safety and many health programs.

With higher education (I’m referring to the completion and awarding of diplomas) a delay in degrees will not stop jobs from being filled or people from making money. And I’m not saying people shouldn’t learn. Everyone should take every opportunity to learn whether it be from reading books, on-the=job training / apprenticeships, or participation in groups and volunteer endeavors. Heck, if they do it right they could re-enter college later a lot better prepared and focused (a la past discussions of European gap years). The library at my old college had a quote above one of the main entry doors that went something like “They know enough who know to learn.” There’s a big difference between learning and getting a piece of paper that says you went through a process. The latter can be delayed with relatively minimal impact.

Of the higher education that is publicly funded those funds should go toward highest public return and programs which benefit most from structured learning and hands-on resources (labs). Those typically are in the sciences.

The part I’m not sure about is what long term organizational impacts there might be. i.e., Retention of key instructors or replenishing staff later. In any event, cutting programs now and reinstating valued programs later will probably get you where you want to go sooner than continuing to work within the current system that protects itself well.

From MM (with a BS in Mechanical Engineering and an MBA).

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-7_jobs_to_skip_college_for-1374

2010-07-25T16:46:00.000-07:00

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-7_jobs_to_skip_college_for-1374

Not all well-paying jobs require a college degree. They all require specialized training (either on-the-job or at technical school). But if you want to be a photographer or nuclear power operator, you may want to consider the specific requirements of that job rather than spending 6 years at an expensive college studying, Psychology or Medieval History. This is an interesting article on the subject.

The world has changed. When my grandfather graduated from the University of California, Berkeley in 1921 (I don’t know if the UC system had any other campuses at that time), having a college degree really distinguished the college grad from the high school grad (or the non-high school grad). I can’t find the stat, but my guess is that fewer than five percent of high school graduates subsequently graduated from college in the 1920’s.

Today close to 60% of high school grads go on to college. But then only 53% of them graduate within six years.

College makes sense if one desires certain jobs (science and engineering in particular). But an expensive Liberal Arts education is no longer much of an advantage. Many Liberal Arts graduates only have big student loan payments to show for their “investment”.

What college majors are in demand this year?

2010-07-23T07:47:00.000-07:00

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/22/pf/college/highest_paying_college_majors/index.htm

This article discusses how college grads are doing in the job market this year. At least there is some emphasis on what engineering majors are earning. Unfortunately the US is graduating far fewer engineers that we need.

But this article fails to report on the starting salaries for Ethnomusicology, Sociology, and Gender Studies majors. Could it be that there are no starting salaries for these interesting but not-in-demand majors because there are no job offers?

Let me ask you how many History major graduates you know that got a related job or even a job that pays more than their non-college graduates this year? I can’t find a single one – but I am still looking.

So the school you attend is not the important thing. What you study and learn is what counts. And if you are borrowing to attend an expensive school and graduating with a Bachelors degree in Psychology then you may be considering (ill advisedly I might add) going to grad school so you can postpone starting to pay off your student loans.

Study something that is in demand, pay for it as you go and pay attention to the cost. This is advice that will result in a solid payback for an investment in college. But borrowing big time to attend a prestigious college with a pretty campus in order to study Liberal Arts, will leave you with few choices and Law School as your only alternative.

Is College Education the next bubble to burst?

2010-07-20T06:57:00.000-07:00

This chart is an interesting way to look at the cost of college.

During the height of the housing bubble, how many times did you hear "You can never lose with the purchase of a home?" - And today, too few families are questioning the cost of their college education.

We are so thrilled that Johnny got accepted to Brown to study Gender Studies

2010-05-29T16:16:00.000-07:00

A story about college student loans abused, misused, wasted and ultimately paid for by taxpayers.

The article is wrong about it being difficult to walk away from student debt. Under the recent health care legislation a new provision allows former students to walk away from their student debts if they have not paid them off in 20 years. And then it is up to you and me. However even before this legislation the number of defaults on these loans was growing steadily and you and I picked up the tab anyway.
But here is the most glaring void in this article.

There is no mention of what this former college student learned? What did she study? It really does matter if one gets a degree in sociology, ethnomusicology, gender studies or in electrical engineering.

There are no jobs for psychology graduates. And no one wants to talk about it. You might land the same job at Home Depot that you could have gotten prior to college (but there are times that it will actually be harder to land a basic job with a non-practical degree). The world is not hiring anyone today based on their Medieval History degree.

Parents are so thrilled that Johnny is heading off to college that they do not want to “discourage” the poor lad from studying an obscure subject for six years even if it almost certainly means he will end up living back at home and unemployed. It is simply not polite to ask Johnny’s parents what they are thinking.

It's College Acceptance Letter Time!

2010-05-17T14:44:00.001-07:00

Excellent piece by Ben Stein last night on 60 minutes.

Ben states that "getting into that certain ultra-prestigious college really means very little in a lifetime." He doesn't mention it but consider those that are accepted into the most prestigious universities in the country and then choose to attend their less expensive alternative at the state university do just as well economically over their lifetimes.

So and education can matter, but far more important is what you learn and how you apply that education via hard work and ingenuity.

Just say "no" to college debt!

2010-05-17T14:33:00.000-07:00

Dave Ramsey hears from a parent that just had to say "no" to borrowing for college.

And when it came down to it, the son figured out a way to join the Navy and get the Navy to pay for his college education. And when he is all done, he is likely to have a useful degree and zero student debt.

Now this makes sense. It is not the only way to do it but is an example of how to do it with going into debt.

Keep in mind that most the time “financial aid” is just another name for “debt”. And anyone that has ever listened to Dave Ramsey knows how much he detests debt.

New York times article about college

2010-05-15T08:37:00.000-07:00

Most of my friends and family believe that not everyone should go to college. Intellectually they are right there with me. But when it comes down to their kids, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. When it comes to their kids, let’s move on to another subject. Yes, your children don’t need to go to college but by golly mine are going to attend and graduate. End of discussion.

If you can afford college or your kids line up financial aid (in other words debt) to pay for college, most folks really don’t have to worry about the short-term finances of the cost of college. Sending your kid to college is so convenient - it is the thing to do. There is hope Jimmy will get inspired. There is hope that Nancy will find herself. There is hope that Mary will emerge with a well-paying job and a satisfying career that will lead to a long, happy and independent life. And maybe in the process Kenny will find his future wife and that his wife will also be blessed with this cure-all to future earnings (a college education).

Perhaps, subconsciously part of the parental support around college might be that when Billy goes to college, you might free up his bedroom, get a little more time to travel with your husband and get some well-earned time off. If Charlie stays at home and starts a new internet business, his room will continue to be a mess.

There is also the parental pride in saying “my daughter Suzie was accepted at Cal” versus “my son Bubba has nabbed a part time job at the five and dime”.

This New York Times article discusses some of the critics of the “my kids must attend college” thinking. It points out that:

1) “Perhaps no more than half of those who began a four-year bachelor’s degree program in the fall of 2006 will get that degree within six years, according to the latest projections from the Department of Education. (The figures don’t include transfer students, who aren’t tracked.)”
2) “For college students who ranked among the bottom quarter of their high school classes, the numbers are even more stark: 80 percent will probably never get a bachelor’s degree or even a two-year associate’s degree.”
3) “It’s time, they say, to develop credible alternatives for students unlikely to be successful pursuing a higher degree, or who may not be ready to do so.”
4) “College degrees are simply not necessary for many jobs. Of the 30 jobs projected to grow at the fastest rate over the next decade in the United States, only seven typically require a bachelor’s degree, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”
5) “15 percent of mail carriers have bachelor’s degrees, according to a 1999 federal study.”

On the other side this article makes a few logic missteps:

1) “It’s not just about the economic return,” he said. “Some college, whether you complete it or not, contributes to aesthetic appreciation, better health and better voting behavior.” Yes - but this assumes there are no non-economic benefits to work, apprenticeships, starting a business or serving your country in the military.
2) “People with college and graduate degrees generally earn more than those without them, and face lower risks of unemployment, according to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.” Yes but this is the standard illogical argument on college. Just because there is a correlation between college degrees and financial success does not mean that one leads to the other. The number one predictor of financial success is higher IQs. Since those with higher IQs tend to get to college easier and have a better chance of graduation, their higher IQs may have more to do with their financial success than the college education.

It is great to see more discussion in the main-stream media on this subject.

Most profitable college majors

2010-05-10T07:57:00.000-07:00

Here is an article about the most profitable college majors. It is good to see this kind of material discussed in the media because it is so rare. The general media and our politicians think and communicate that any college education is a worthwhile education.

But two things are not discussed. First, it matters whether one majors in engineering or in ethnomusicology. The first one lands the college graduate plenty of job offers at a good wage. The ethnomusicology graduate ends up waiting endlessly for a job offer that never arrives.

But this is only part of the cost versus benefit discussion that needs to be heard. If one is accepted at Harvard but instead decides to attend San Jose State to study electrical engineering, their career prospects are just as strong according to the data. In other words, historically the actual learning and characteristics of the college student are what matter - not the brand-name of the college. A graduate with an IQ of 120 and a degree in Mechanical Engineering from University of Arizona is going to do pretty well - far better in fact than a student with an IQ of 120 and a degree in Sociology from Harvard. The Arizona all-in cost is perhaps $80,000 versus over $200,000 at Harvard.

But the biggest waste is when one spends $200,000 on an obscure degree from Harvard that is not in demand. Then you have the worst value - a high cost for a degree with little value.

Just because someone else is paying for the college education (your parents, a scholarship or the government) does not mean that this opportunity should be wasted. The atmosphere and friends developed at college are great but they are secondary to the job of creating graduates that are in demand.

College Grads Outlook is Grim

2010-04-05T20:21:00.000-07:00

A college degree does not guarantee a job. Especially if the degree is in Ethnomusicology or Gender Studies. In fact in these two cases, a prospective employer may say - "Are you kidding me, do you have any common sense at all?"

The prospects for college grads are generally bad, but if your degree is ins Sociology - you are looking ahead at several miles of bad road. If you have a degree in Chemical Engineering, your prospects are far brighter.