Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

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

#41

Post by Locke1689 »

showerst wrote: post #31
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…

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 history majors won't suddenly switch to the hard sciences. Now, it's possible that university is instead a luxury -- if they have the money to pay for it, it's an extremely appealing situation. However, many if not most do not have the money to pay for it. In summary, I'm not sure this is a problem with universities, but with students. How do we persuade people not to go to college?

P.S. When the author states that universities are weak and "ripe for takeover" he then uses STEM funding being too spread out as an argument. This is stupid because if we did consolidate STEM funding like he suggests, it would probably go to mostly the 50-100 best universities in the country. This would only solidify those schools' power and work against his entire argument.

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

#42

Post by run4yourlives »

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 post raises a very important question: What is the purpose of universities?

In my mind, the original goal of expanding knowledge for its sake alone is the rightful place of "higher education" and in and of itself means that these institutions will be expensive to attend and therefore not for everyone.

The secondary purpose though of equipping a modern workforce is something that more and more, universities have chosen to assume. You fricken need a post-secondary degree to be a secretary these days. This is where the problem is.

Current institutions should be forced to accept their role as either the former or the latter. As a society we should place less emphasis on the need for the accreditations that stem from the former as well.

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

#43

Post by presidentender »

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…

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

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

#44

Post by yequalsx »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #36
yequalsx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I teach at a community college. The price is quite low (and my pay). Society does not want to pay for knowledge. It does not see a benefit in having people who appreciate art, literature, culture, music, etc. It only sees a benefit from electrical engineering and other such subjects. It's a problem of society and it's short sighted goals.

There are two sides to a price calculation - the supply and the demand side. The price for teaching is low because the supply is huge - there is a vast pool of people who want to teach literature, and are willing to do it at very low prices. If a literature adjunct quits, the college can immediately go to the waiting list and find someone else willing to take the job for $5k/class. In contrast, if I (a programmer) we…

I wasn't referring to pay as evidence society doesn't want to pay for art, culture, education, etc. The low pay is one consequence of this fact. There is definitely an oversupply of teachers in the humanities and sciences. But it is true that funding levels per student are decreasing and that there is increasing pressure to 'streamline' the process. This is a buzz word for cutting out the unimportant stuff like art, music, etc. It's bad for society in the long run.

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

#45

Post by patana »

If university are a source of education, knowledge, research and innovation and not a factory for making cars, why should they be managed in the same way?

If people were like a car, you could push the accelerator to make them move quickly, but there is no accelerator to push to achieve the goals of universities.

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

#47

Post by 16s »

yequalsx wrote: post #27
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…

I teach at a community college. The price is quite low (and my pay). Society does not want to pay for knowledge. It does not see a benefit in having people who appreciate art, literature, culture, music, etc. It only sees a benefit from electrical engineering and other such subjects. It's a problem of society and it's short sighted goals.

Liberal Arts is a luxury that many cultures cannot afford. When you're just starting out or trying to survive as a culture, you need engineers, hard-core scientists and business people. Take China and Israel for example. The upper class can go for Liberal Arts at any time, but the culture as a whole will lean strongly to hard science until they're established enough to enjoy that luxury. Times are bad now (but getting better) and soft majors are not wanted, but when times are good again, they'll be more jobs for the softies to fill.

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

#48

Post by yequalsx »

timwiseman wrote: post #28
yequalsx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I teach at a community college. The price is quite low (and my pay). Society does not want to pay for knowledge. It does not see a benefit in having people who appreciate art, literature, culture, music, etc. It only sees a benefit from electrical engineering and other such subjects. It's a problem of society and it's short sighted goals.

No, it is that I do not want to be forced to pay directly or indirectly for someone else to appreciate art, literature, or music, especially not when there are kids down my block that are barely able to read and pot holes in the roads I drive on. That truly is not a high priority for a society with other more pressing problems. I am however quite willing to pay with my own money so that I and my family can learn to a…

Interesting you mention the kids who are barely able to read while saying you don't want to pay for someone else to appreciate art, literature, music, etc. What sort of reading do you have in mind for these kids to learn? Should we just teach them how to read an operating manual for machinery or the instruction set for putting something together? Reading is an essential part of learning to appreciate art, music, literature.

I think it was Socrates that said the unexamined life is not worth living. I guess I'd like to give everyone a chance at having a life worth living by exposing them to thoughts, ideas, and experiences that are essential to an enriched human life. This means teaching us all how to appreciate art, literature, music, etc. It also has the added bonus of making society a better place to live.

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

#49

Post by ewams »

showerst wrote: post #31
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…

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…

How is this the fault of the institute? If people are pursuing what they want, and the institute is providing it, then they are succeeding in sharing knowledge. Isn't this the mission statement of most colleges and universities? There are reasons schools like ITT and University of Phoenix exist; and a whole different reason for schools like MIT, RIT, Standford, etc. to exist.

People need to realize that there is no need for 175k history major graduates each year and that they will probably never use their degree. The same goes for many other majors, but you know what, if you love it, pursue it, right? Isn't that what entrepreneurship is all about? Just be realistic about your path.

If the cost of schooling is getting out of hand then the people paying for it should do something about it, as some already are. See University of Puerto Rico: http://www.workers.org/2010/world/upr_0520/

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

#50

Post by sprout »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #22
sprout wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The merger of research and teaching is a public good, for multiple reasons. One, it makes it easier for teachers to spend some time doing. (naturally apprenticeship programs could serve the same goal) Two, it makes the public bankroll research they might not otherwise see the importance of (having very poor understanding of how progress works.)

I don't think you understand what a public good is. A public good is a good which is non-rivalrous and non-excludible. Published research fits this criteria. Teaching does not. Further, research subsidizes teaching at most research universities, not the other way around. Universities take almost half of the NSF's budget in the form of "overhead", most of which is subsidizing teaching and general university waste. The…

>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 between these two fields. If you can only do, no one will benefit from your knowledge. If you can only teach, what exactly are you teaching? So teaching is not 'waste.' Industry would do well to allocate significant resources to teaching, and in fact they do. Government has more freedom to think long-term and focus on fostering more researchers at the expense of present gains. If you had your way, it would create significant gains in the next ten years, but out 20-30 years, there would be a significant drop off.

In fact, there's evidence we're already experiencing this drop-off, due to declining school funding, both at the university and k-12 level.

Post reply on HN