It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky to cut college programs

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Here's a mental exercise: Let's make every state college/university in KY prove the worth and value of their programs that they don't want to cut. I mean, anyone who has been to a college or university and seen the list of available degrees fully understands that, as a whole, there are so many degrees available that are utterly ridiculous to hold post graduation, or that have a job-placement percentage of the degree in the single digits.


So are you saying that we as a society shouldn't be teaching certain things? Is women's studies not a subject that it benefits society to understand? Putting aside how many need to be studying it, would we be objectively better off if it was simply never taught?

If we can agree that many fringe subjects should be taught and studied to some extent, then can we also agree that we should let the market decide who teaches it? Oversaturation of degrees is a self correcting issue, that's why degrees that have been overproduced have declined in recent years. Fewer people see opportunity and take them, resulting in fewer programs being offered. Should it be up to the state to step in and remove these degrees instead? Even if you think it should be up to the state to remove the degree, why should Kansas give up their program? Why shouldn't they instead make it competitive and force some other state to give theirs up instead?



But out of sheer curiosity, Aazadan, what is your opinion as to "the point of college?"


To create an educated population. I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made as a society is to tie the concept of being educated to job training. They aren't remotely the same thing. Trade skills are job skills, they aren't an education. I think the same should be true of other professions, just because I have a Computer Science degree shouldn't mean I'm educated, it means I know a bit (no pun intended) about 0's and 1's. My actual education consists of science courses, math, philosophy, music, writing, art, and so on. Not my job training.




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't think it's democrats fault that Republicans can't govern. Maybe Kentucky democrat voters sat this one out to test the Republicans.
edit on 15-9-2017 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

But when you continue to offer those degrees, you are continuing to support the professors and staff who teach them on taxpayer dimes at state schools.

If the job markets for people who hold women's (womyn's - not sure which is the most technically apropro) studies and similar degrees is basically nil and mostly limited to only producing more academics, then what is the point of the state continuing to fund them?

How many womne's/womyn's scholars does the world need? And how many Starbucks baristas are you willing to subsidize for a substantial portion of their adult lives in order to produce that one academic?

Perhaps there might be a tiny bit of benefit to studying the area in question, but so much so that we need an entire degreed sector of the populace for it?

I think not.
edit on 15-9-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The only legitimate function of the state is to ensure that the rights of its citizens are not infringed upon.

They should cut the whole damn thing. All of it. K through PhD.

We can take care of it ourselves.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I can't see a flaw in the logic of not encouraging people to look for useful degrees.

My oldest has his BA in English, minored in Journalism. Never started a blog, never wrote anything other than a year for the Toreador (Texas Tech's school paper). No idea how he expected to get a job. Now he's a high school teacher....but he didn't want to do that, and was kind of put in a position of doing it just to repay loans.

Hard headed kid wouldn't listen to me and my constant preaching about STEM classes (he's gifted mathematically, and a terrible writer)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Im surprised Kentucky even has colleges to be honest.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't think it's democrats fault that Republicans can't govern. Maybe Kentucky democrat voters sat this one out to test the Republicans.


Test what? Ernie Fletcher (R) was governor from 2003-2007, and he super-sucked, too.

Democrats took it for granted that Conway would win and didn't get off their butts and vote. Conway was Kentucky's Attorney General, until 2016. He and his dad are well-known and well-liked in Kentucky. The fact is, Conway was fully expected to win and would have won if Democrats didn't stay home.

I don't know why you think Democratic voters aren't really to blame for this one. I can tell you as a resident of Kentucky that they are kicking themselves for it, here.


edit on 9/15/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: lightedhype
Im surprised Kentucky even has colleges to be honest.


Why all these ridiculous stereotypes about Kentucky?

I did half my undergrad at U of L and half at UK. Yes, we have colleges and if you didn't know that, then maybe you don't have any room to mock Kentuckians about education.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
But when you continue to offer those degrees, you are continuing to support the professors and staff who teach them on taxpayer dimes at state schools.

If the job markets for people who hold women's (womyn's - not sure which is the most technically apropro) studies and similar degrees is basically nil and mostly limited to only producing more academics, then what is the point of the state continuing to fund them?

How many womne's/womyn's scholars does the world need? And how many Starbucks baristas are you willing to subsidize for a substantial portion of their adult lives in order to produce that one academic?

Perhaps there might be a tiny bit of benefit to studying the area in question, but so much so that we need an entire degreed sector of the populace for it?

I think not.


Should it be up to the state to determine that though? Or should it be a function of the university looking at their enrollment numbers and figuring out what is sustainable?

If something is worth studying, and we seem to be in agreement that fringe degrees offer at least some merit, then should it be up to the state to regulate those numbers? I think that if we go that route, we're just asking for a lot of mismanagement. For example, art degrees can be quite lucrative but many, especially those in government think it's a dead end subject. We would be harming ourselves by turning people away from that degree for non academic means.

States don't do that well with planned economies, planned education isn't going to go much better.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

I can't see a flaw in the logic of not encouraging people to look for useful degrees.

My oldest has his BA in English, minored in Journalism. Never started a blog, never wrote anything other than a year for the Toreador (Texas Tech's school paper). No idea how he expected to get a job. Now he's a high school teacher....but he didn't want to do that, and was kind of put in a position of doing it just to repay loans.

Hard headed kid wouldn't listen to me and my constant preaching about STEM classes (he's gifted mathematically, and a terrible writer)


Encouragement only goes so far though. For example, at my university on the first day of the first class in every major they flat out tell you the graduation rate for that major, the employment rate post graduation, the employment rate in your field post graduation, and 1/5/10 year earnings rates contrasted with the cost of your degree.

I think it's an Ohio requirement for all this information to be given. It doesn't help people though, and parental guidance isn't always helpful either. Parents often have the best intentions for their kids, but advice is limited to the experience and knowledge of the person giving the advice and sometimes the wrong majors get pushed to the wrong people.

I'm not quite sure what the solution is. I can say that I don't think people should be going into college at 18 with no life experience, and I don't like job training being tied to college (this has been a fairly recent development), but I don't know of actual solutions for either of those.

I will say though that I think we should get rid of federal student loans. Instead, we should make colleges finance the debt of their students. This would make colleges compete over loan terms, borrowing amounts, and give them an incentive to ensure their students can pay back the debt. Oh, and allow bankruptcy as an out again.

I think that this change alone might actually be enough to fix colleges.
edit on 15-9-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I can understand your point of lazy democrat voters.
But, that has nothing to do with how Republicans govern. The voters who did vote for Republicans know they cut budgets and programs. Maybe this will be a lesson to lazy democrat voters. Especially poor ones.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

It's a state school. State determines the funding. If the state doesn't want to fund programs that don't create self-sustaining citizens, that's the state's prerogative. They *do* hold the purse strings.

Perhaps those study areas are best left to private institutions.

Also, unless I miss my guess, I thought the purpose of higher education was to prepare our young people to compete in the work place of tomorrow. How do many of the degrees being offered and subsidized by taxpayers do that?

If the young person goes into deep debt earning a degree that qualifies them for nothing more than basic wage labor, then I'd argue the mission of higher education was not well served.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Party loyalists have a very hard time criticizing their own party. I do think it will serve as a lesson to Democratic voters, here, though.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
So are you saying that we as a society shouldn't be teaching certain things? Is women's studies not a subject that it benefits society to understand? Putting aside how many need to be studying it, would we be objectively better off if it was simply never taught?


No, I'm not saying that, or otherwise I would have said that.

What IS a reality, though, is that there are other institutions for higher learning that are not state-run institutions. Women's studies, amongst other things, can be taught there, if it's a lucrative-enough course of study to attract people.


If we can agree that many fringe subjects should be taught and studied to some extent, then can we also agree that we should let the market decide who teaches it?

Please tell me that you understand the difference between a subject being taught and a complete degree program, or college of study, existing around it. What your link notes is that Gov. Bevin is asking public universities and colleges to cut programs, not individual courses of study. What you seem to be discussing is the cutting of individual courses of study, which is different than is being asked for. From your own link:

“Find entire parts of your campus … that don’t need to be there,” Bevin said in a speech at the Governor’s Conference on Postsecondary Education Trusteeship in Louisville, Ky., the Associated Press reported. “Either physically as programs, degrees that you’re offering, buildings that … shouldn’t be there because you’re maintaining something that’s not an asset of any value, that’s not helping to produce that 21st-century educated work force.”



Should it be up to the state to step in and remove these degrees instead? Even if you think it should be up to the state to remove the degree, why should Kansas give up their program? Why shouldn't they instead make it competitive and force some other state to give theirs up instead?

Who is talking about Kansas? We're discussing KY and only KY, and yes, if you are funded and overseen by the government, you are subject to the whims and decisions of the government. If you don't like that, be a private college or university, or trade school, or anything not directly funded by the state.

When you make a deal with the devil, you must be ready to abide by his rules.



To create an educated population. I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made as a society is to tie the concept of being educated to job training. They aren't remotely the same thing. Trade skills are job skills, they aren't an education. I think the same should be true of other professions, just because I have a Computer Science degree shouldn't mean I'm educated, it means I know a bit (no pun intended) about 0's and 1's. My actual education consists of science courses, math, philosophy, music, writing, art, and so on. Not my job training.

While I agree with you to an extent, the problem is that too much emphasis has been put on having a college degree in order to be competitive in the job world, even if said degree means nothing concerning the field of employment for which one is applying.

The big turn in the "need" to have a college education happened mainly because of the G.I. Bill--prior to that, higher education was relatively rare in our society, and most people were content with a high-school education (if they even finished that before going to work).

That's the paradox that we find ourselves in--we have fostered a government-sponsored "need" to have a college degree, complete with federal student loans and the falsehood that 'everyone deserves to go to college,' but then when the government starts wanting education to change, the schools sponsored by the government throw a fit, and people complain (rightfully so, for the most part) that college shouldn't only be about job training.

The public education system cannot have its cake and eat it, too, but that's what most administrators, professors, and even voters want and expect. But it can't be done, and IMO, shouldn't be done on the taxpayer's dime. I'm happy-ish to pay property taxes to fund K-12 education--anything pursued after that should not be something for which I am forced to pay via state taxes.

But the bottom line is that if these schools don't like being told what to do, quit holding out your hand and begging for money every year and expecting not to be told what to do with those funds.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

To add to your point, when the state budget shortfall numbers are *officially* projected, in December, all state program budgets are going to be required to be slashed by 17% (last I heard).

Kentucky needs more revenue (and not through higher taxes).



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Also, unless I miss my guess, I thought the purpose of higher education was to prepare our young people to compete in the work place of tomorrow.


It is not. It's only been relatively recently, in the last 50 years or so that we've coupled job training to the concept of education. Both are places where you learn things, but education is more about thought processes and expanding your mind. Job training is more along the lines of securing employment.

The issue is that private business has been moving more and more of the risk of training people to the employees themselves, and since employees don't know how to train themselves, the only adult education system around, colleges, have taken over that role.

In Computer Science for example, there has been a new type of trade skill popping up in the past few years called a bootcamp. These bootcamps have been getting very popular and they're essentially accelerated programs to get people junior positions at various software firms. These programs aren't where they need to be right now, but they're a good first step. Contrast that with college where most of what you learn isn't related to your actual degree.

We probably have too many colleges right now, and not enough trade skills. That said, I think everyone needs more general education because our current compulsory system doesn't teach all that's needed.



If the young person goes into deep debt earning a degree that qualifies them for nothing more than basic wage labor, then I'd argue the mission of higher education was not well served.


Actually, there's another thread I want to make on this subject. So I'll save linking the article for now, but nearly 50% of millennials would gladly permanently trade away their right to vote in exchange for their student loan debt being removed. This shows that their colleges which were teaching job skills did not do a proper job at making an educated populace because critical thinking suggests they could vote away their student loans instead. And, if they didn't do that, they still don't understand the importance of having the ability to vote. Losing the right to vote would only increase their burdens. Which means that by either interpretation they're probably due a refund because college didn't teach them how to think.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: Aazadan


This seems rather short-sighted, if the original goal of its university system was to have more educated Kentucky citizens.




My sister writes for grants in a state literacy program, in Frankfort. Their state funding has been slashed and slashed, over the last several years.

I am sure there's a ton of waste in state government spending that would be better targeted, but there are other educational programs that *might* benefit from this move.

I doubt it, but maybe.

From what I've read, the programs targeted by this initiative won't save much.



It's the poor kids from rural areas who need the most help who will suffer the most. I'm glad college is in the rear-view mirror. I feel for my brother-in-law whose son just went to college, though. The cost is jaw-dropping, and it's a state school.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Basically, they want the colleges in their state to evaluate each program and stop offering anything that doesn't lead directly to meaningful employment.


This is as it should be regardless of fiscal situation. If someone wants a degree in underwater basket weaving, then 100% of the cost should be on the shoulders of the student, because the program adds not one cent of benefit to the tax payers subsidizing it.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Aazadan

The same state that found it a good idea to give an $18,000,000 tax break to a creationist museum.

Because humans riding Dinosaurs..

Ahhh, Kentucky. Training the next generation of worker bees. Same as it ever was.
Good news if you don't have a college degree living in Kentucky, they are hiring at Ken Ham's creation museum. All you have to do is sign a Statement of Faith with AiG claiming you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the statement on marriage and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly.

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
So pretty much all other science which contradicts the Young Earth Creationist theory is rejected. Perhaps they could cut out all those college courses as well.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
What IS a reality, though, is that there are other institutions for higher learning that are not state-run institutions. Women's studies, amongst other things, can be taught there, if it's a lucrative-enough course of study to attract people.


Not everything that society needs to learn and study is going to be financially profitable though. Sometimes that knowledge is worth the loss, and sometimes the job service itself is worth the loss. For example the USPS is a public entity that we shouldn't leave entirely to the private sector. In another case, certain medicines for rare conditions can only be developed with public money because there's not enough people contracting that disease to fund the study of it.

Sometimes we should be devoting resources to studying something, if for no other reason than we gain the knowledge that isn't deserving of heavy investment.


Please tell me that you understand the difference between a subject being taught and a complete degree program, or college of study, existing around it.


A course rarely goes in depth into a subject, most often a course exists merely as a piece of a larger subject. It has been my experience that few subjects don't have a complete degree program attached for those interested.


Who is talking about Kansas? We're discussing KY and only KY, and yes, if you are funded and overseen by the government, you are subject to the whims and decisions of the government. If you don't like that, be a private college or university, or trade school, or anything not directly funded by the state.


Sorry, I've got a bad case of the flu today and the medicine (not to mention lack of sleep) is messing with me. Mixed up Kentucky with Kansas.



While I agree with you to an extent, the problem is that too much emphasis has been put on having a college degree in order to be competitive in the job world, even if said degree means nothing concerning the field of employment for which one is applying.


Unfortunately, we only have two ways of confirming competency in a field right now. College degrees, and certifications. You can look to the IT field to see how well the certification route has been going (hint: it's a disaster). The only other thing we have is college degrees and they haven't been faring all that well either.



The public education system cannot have its cake and eat it, too, but that's what most administrators, professors, and even voters want and expect. But it can't be done, and IMO, shouldn't be done on the taxpayer's dime. I'm happy-ish to pay property taxes to fund K-12 education--anything pursued after that should not be something for which I am forced to pay via state taxes.


I actually think K-12 needs a complete overhaul. I'm not quite sure what that overhaul is, 2 more years making it K-14 would be my preference, but so many people don't want to sit in the classroom, and so many of our public schools have their own issues that I'm not convinced of that option. I for one, would like to see more job based training in compulsory education though, as well as classes on personal finance, investing, negotiation, and ethics. An alternative would be a more dynamic schooling system too, where each student could have a unique curriculum that meets their needs. A couple months back I suggested a standardized testing system that would allow for that very thing.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join