Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies? • Hacker News Board

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#71

Post by potatolicious » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 6:33 PM UTC

Locke1689 wrote: post #41

showerst wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I upvoted you, but on the flip side, we currently have a large number of students who are coming out of college with low real-world value degrees and huge amounts of debt. It's probably unsustainable to have 175,000 psych and history majors[1] graduating every year with 10-20,000 dollars in debt[2]. (Not to speak of all the business/marketing majors) I'm not saying that colleges should turn into work-training program…

However, this may simply mean that fewer people should be going to college, not that the university system has a deep flaw. If, for example, 100k psych majors are graduating only to work in social services or some slightly related field, should these people be going to college at all? Are these skills necessary for the workforce? It's important to recognize that just because we wish it were so, 50,000 psych and histo…

> "How do we persuade people not to go to college?"

I think that's the wrong way to look at it. The argument is always practical vs. impractical degrees - but that's not all of it.

The problem is twofold, IMHO:

- Impractical degrees are disproportionately expensive compared to their earning power. You learn a lot of stuff, go deeply into debt, and wind up not being able to pay it off. In short: impractical degrees are overpriced.

- Practical degrees are (in most places) worth the money, but unbelievably loaded in terms of curriculum. Students come up as one-dimensional idiots, who have been impeccably trained in one subject area and nothing else. This creates effective workforces, but creates ineffective citizens, contrary to the humanities (read: most of the impractical degrees).

The two problems are IMHO rather separate, but the second doesn't get nearly enough attention. I cannot begin to count the number of engineers I graduated with who had not even the faintest idea of how politics in our country works - or some of the most basic philosophies the nation is based on, or even the most basic of 20th century history. Few of them appreciate art to any degree, and even fewer practice some form of it themselves.

Our engineering programs are creating idiots - people who can design bridges and write code like no other, but are worthless as people otherwise.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#72

Post by sprout » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 6:35 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #56

sprout wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A public good is a good which is non-rivalrous and non-excludible. Published research fits this criteria. Teaching does not. As I said, the merger of the two is a public good. It makes research a fundamental part of our notion of learning, and it makes undirected research possible. I'm firmly in the teachers should do, and doers should teach camp. Society as a whole is better off if there is cross-pollination betwee…

Undirected research is quite possible outside the university system. Perhaps you've heard of Bell Labs? When the government still subsidized them [1], they did plenty of undirected research. In the university system, about 50% of the money the government has earmarked for research is actually used for that purpose. At Bell Labs, the number was close to 100%. Most grant supported research groups do plenty of undirecte…

>You are telling me that (roughly) doubling the amount of money devoted to research will harm research? I really don't understand the mechanism by which that would happen.

Again, because you are taking that money away from education. Good education is a fundamental part of good research. They don't need to be in the same building, but they do need to have the same people involved, if only that the researcher was at some point educated.

>There are not that many people who have both of these skill sets. I only had the researcher's skill set, and I know many people with the teacher's skill set.

It doesn't matter. You should try to teach anyway. If you're any good at what you do your experience will be worth something to the people you teach. You experience is in many ways more valuable in teaching 30 students for a year than it is applying that experience. Education is a multiplier, not simply additive.

Obviously, you need both. But trying to do each in a vacuum is short-sighted.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#73

Post by pigbucket » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 6:39 PM UTC

nanairo wrote: post #23

goodwinb wrote: post #10

Can you HNers think of a way to separate the teaching aspect of university from the research aspect? They seem to serve two different customers. Teaching is really for students to educate them and season them up for life. Research is for the government or business and makes the professor and university money. I think we can all remember a hard core research professor who could not teach a class worth a damn. On the o…

The model already exist: school vs. universities. It is just---and this is just my opinion---that as human knowledge became bigger and bigger, what the people at the edge, pushing the envelope do, is further and further from what a 1st year undergraduate does. Basically we would need another school in the middle for what is a BA/BSci for example, and use univeristy (and university professors) for masters and phds. As…

Right, but the school v. university model is breaking down for more than one reason. The problem has two edges. Just when you want, because of the expanding boundaries of knowledge, increasingly well-prepared undergraduates, you get the opposite. US universities typically have to teach a depressingly unchallenging hodgepodge of general education courses and remedial courses because students get fucked by the high-school system and because everyone and his brother these days simply must to go to college, no matter how dumb the brother is. A society that depends on universities to teach basic English composition, to take the most egregious example, is like ... well, I can't think of anything that's quite that ridiculous, but it's a massive waste of resources. But it's also a problem that no one wants to solve: It relieves high schools of the burden of actually teaching anything. It's lucrative for the universities, which just throw cheap grad students at the problem. And the four-year continuation of secondary education that the University has become for many is a nice (if hugely expensive, but who gives a fuck) way to keep down unemployment. End of Rant.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#74

Post by presidentender » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 6:41 PM UTC

jazzyb wrote: post #61

shadowsun7 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are impractical degrees that bad, in and of themselves?

Provided you can afford the impractical degree or you don't mind the debt to get it, then no, they're not. The problem is that people are investing tens of thousands of dollars into degrees that won't return anything on that investment. I've heard the argument that such an investment is not in money but in making one a more well-rounded person, but I've personally never understood paying so much for knowledge that ca…

I'm well-rounded. I can also program, do math (it's not just for high school math teachers) and speak German.

Meanwhile, my friend the psych/sociology major is out of work despite intelligence and conversational aptitude, and my friend the anthropology major works at a laundromat for what would be less than minimum wage in most other states.

These are people just as smart as I am, with much better GPAs. We all bought the "college => easy middle class" thing hook, line and sinker; I'm just lucky enough to have chosen a degree that pays.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#75

Post by rts » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 6:43 PM UTC

nanairo wrote: post #25

I must admit that I am always a bit prejudicial when I hear an business person (or a business magazine like this) talking about universities. They seem to view Universities as a business proposal: "How much do we invest? How much do we get out of it?", which it shouldn't be. Take this quote: "If colleges were businesses, they would be ripe for hostile takeovers, complete with serious cost-cutting and painful reorgani…

You have a point, but keep in mind that taxpayers are subsidizing all of this through federal student loans and Pell grants. With the administration pushing student loan forgiveness, private universities, including the high-priced ones like Harvard and NYU, can sell people degrees in subjects like gender studies and religious studies that do little to improve the employability of graduates who possess them, sometimes for as much as $40k a year in tuition alone. Years down the road, when those graduates are unemployed or underemployed and can't pay back their loans, the loans will be forgiven, Harvard et. al. will keep the money they were given, and the taxpayer will have to eat the debt.

If the government is going to pay for this, there needs be a serious discussion about educational outcomes and what best serves the national interest. Should we subsidize people pursuing degrees in gender studies or Latino/Black/Asian/Minority Interest Group Studies, and if so, why? How will that make us more competitive in a global market or result in innovation that improves our quality of life?

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#76

Post by SandB0x » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 6:47 PM UTC

nanairo wrote: post #25

I must admit that I am always a bit prejudicial when I hear an business person (or a business magazine like this) talking about universities. They seem to view Universities as a business proposal: "How much do we invest? How much do we get out of it?", which it shouldn't be. Take this quote: "If colleges were businesses, they would be ripe for hostile takeovers, complete with serious cost-cutting and painful reorgani…

Completely agree with the sentiment, however you may be overestimating the fully rounded student thing. Things may be completely different in the US - what I'm writing is all UK-centric, and somewhat anecdotal - but I suspect they're not.

Here, everyone I know who studied "STEM" subjects really had to put in some serious work to get their degrees. This was true from modestly ranked universities all the way through to the top places like Oxbridge and Imperial.

For people who studied humanities it was completely different. At the very top places/courses, yes, you would have a LOT of work. At least one large essay due a week, a mountain of reading material, and a deep appreciation of your subject. However just a few steps down, at slightly less competitive but still very well regarded institutions, I have friends who were given maybe three essays a term (semester), with many spending under ten hours doing anything related to their course in a given week. Sure, people are going do a lot of important growing up in their three years, but many will admit that their course is a bit of a joke, and they're doing it for the piece of paper, not because of an unquenchable thirst for knowledge.

Sorry if that sounds somewhat unpleasant, I didn't mean it to be. Universities should not be run in the cynical way that you fear, but something does need to change.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#77

Post by SkyMarshal » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 6:48 PM UTC

It appears that the US's top, world-class universities will survive relatively easily, and the affordable and profitable degree-factories like Phoenix may as well. State Universities will too in one form or another, depending on the finances of their state govt.

But the private ones in the middle that charge high tuition & fees, are not particularly renowned, and have come to rely on easy credit for huge student loans are going to struggle.

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#78

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 6:49 PM UTC

oiuygtfrtghyju wrote: post #35

whyenot wrote: post #24

Go to a state school. In California, the tuition for a California State University is about $5500 a year. If you can't afford that, you likely qualify for a CalGrant which is awarded based on need and are around $5400 per school year. For example, San Jose State University here in Silicon Valley, doesn't have the reputation that a top tier school has, but you can still get a very good education, in some ways better t…

> doesn't have the reputation that a top tier school has Thats the problem: The deal isn't go to university and learn stuff. The deal is go to university and you will get a better job, the extra salary you make will pay back the tuition and lost years of income. As more people go to uni the more the market segments - it becomes go to Harvard/Yale, you will pay 10x as much in tuition but earn 100x as much in salary. B…

[deleted]

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#79

Post by _delirium » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 6:53 PM UTC

presidentender wrote: post #43

Locke1689 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, this may simply mean that fewer people should be going to college, not that the university system has a deep flaw. If, for example, 100k psych majors are graduating only to work in social services or some slightly related field, should these people be going to college at all? Are these skills necessary for the workforce? It's important to recognize that just because we wish it were so, 50,000 psych and histo…

The deep flaw is that too many people go to college for impractical degrees.

Ah, but which are those, and do we really want to get rid of them all? Math degrees, for example, are not too lucrative employment-wise (except for statistics, which often is in a different department anyway). Do we really want to axe the math department?

Biology is even worse--- its starting salaries are approximately the same as most liberal arts fields. Does biology get to stay because it's science, though, despite having no better a business case than English does?

Re: Will America’s universities go the way of its car companies?

#80

Post by dragoon » Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 7:05 PM UTC

lg wrote: post #39

dragoon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enough people with some degree of need are passing the "extracurricular hurdles" that 55% of Yalies receive financial aid. The vast, vast, vast majority of people in that 55% are not even remotely poor. Most are of upper-middle income and of even higher socioeconomic status (e.g. progeny of diplomats, famous art gallery owners, and esteemed professors who make a merely upper-middle income but are higher in social sta…

I can tell you from experience: people making upper-middle income don't get much aid from the ivies. If you're poor, it's free, and if you're rich, who cares, but if your family's income is in the low six figures, you're looking at big loans.

I know that. I was saying that in reference to his claim that 55% of Yale students receive financial aid, which is a bit of a red herring, because the vast majority of Americans qualify for some (but often not much) aid.