Free College for Everyone Is Not About Educating the Masses. It's About Saving A Dying Industry.

a reply to: Bluntone22

What you they learning in high school...

How to put condoms on bananas.

a reply to: Bluntone22

" How about fixing our high schools? "


Fagetaboutit . Where there is No Will , there is No Way ..........(

a reply to: Subsonic

The internet is not free. Scientific papers, articles and books are not available for everyone, they cost a ton of money.
Taking classes and being able to ask someone and having your own thoughts on a subject corrected is a big difference to just read a little about it also.
Free education means earning certificates to get a better job.
What you say is just not true.

originally posted by: nfflhome
YOU nailed it. How about cutting all the fluff hours and making a degree
about 60 hours or about half the hours currently required. Just the classes vital to that degree.
2 years and out.

There already is such a program, more or less, and it's called an associates degree or a trade school. I don't know if you attended college but those other classes (non-core), at a decent college with a nice selection of "electives" are often very useful to the person's education if they don't blow them on things like basket weaving or 1930's beat poetry. The point of these other classes is to produce a well rounded individual who isn't ignorant of the world at large and while it may not be the best way of doing it, I can say that there is MUCH to be learned and a lot of things which you would never encounter in normal daily "life".

Where I went psychology was mandatory and it was very helpful to a 18yr old who was dealing with 1,000's of new people from different backgrounds, some fairly hostile at times, others manipulative or "scary". It would take a long time to gather this kind of knowledge from random life encounters and there is a good possibility that some of those might not have been such good outcomes.

I'm actually not supporting the current model, I don't believe student loans should be forgiven and I think grants and scholarships should be much more strict requiring a 3.0 minimum to keep them and repayment for any person receiving them and failing out of college. There is a HUGE amount of $ wasted in both of these by people who don't earn their way into college and then don't have "skin in the game" - so they waste everyone's time and $ and take up space of a person who actually would have done the work. All scholarships & grants need to have a penalty for failure, possibly pro-rated for special cases like medical absence, family hardship, or other "acts of god".

a reply to: Subsonic

Here's the thing, those online courses are crap. Not all of them, but most are. Things like Coursera and Udacity are scams. That is not knowledge, it is watching a youtube video. It is one way communication when the point of university is two way communication. Class time is literally the most inconsequential part of college. Yes, you go to class, but you're supposed to be using university resources to do your own further study in the off time.

Since they are one way, anything that requires a person to evaluate like a writing course, cannot be taught. Furthermore, anything that may require some additional resources that you can't get by watching a video cannot be taught. Also, it eliminates any form of discussion. A good lecture will involve the professor speaking, but also engaging with the class, videos do not do that.

The only thing that is happening with higher education, is that people want a quicker and easier path to gain knowledge in a world where a 4 year degree is not enough. The absolute bare minimum at this point requires more like 8 years of study for most subjects as bachelors degrees are insufficient.

Not helping matters, is the fact that interns are worthless. Society has decided to merge both education and job training into the same program, a college education. This results in insufficient time for both. But, we've also decided that individuals need to take the risk on obtaining job skills. This means that universities are not giving students the tools they need to perform work, or the tools they need to think critically. This in turn causes interns to be of nearly zero value to a business.

If you think about it, this also makes sense. While the barrier to entry on labor is always going down, the world itself relies more and more on specialization so in order to do any meaningful work more education is required. If you need people with more than just a 4 year degree to fill entry level roles (which usually aren't very profitable to the business in the first place), how is someone with even less than that supposed to be able to contribute?

Internships are no longer about experience, or cheap labor. The only value an intern has to a company is as part of a talent identification process. A company can get some interns and try them out at a smaller loss than they take on normal entry level employees, and hopefully find some people who show potential that can be given return offers. The actual work an intern does, and the value they provide the company is negative.

tl;dr: People who are misinformed are trying to claim that reference material is replacing the need for classrooms. This is quite simply false. If it were true, then books would have ended the entire school system 100 years ago.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Subsonic

Can you imagine the amount of tax payer subsidies it would take in order to provide "free" degrees?

We know that subsidizing almost any industry causes the prices to skyrocket and the quality of the service or good to decline.

The so called producers no longer have an incentive to cut costs or improve their product, primarily because they are guaranteed money.

Tens of thousands of dollars per year per student to get a degree, which in this economic environment will get you a job at Starbucks.

Yes, I can. Because it's what we used to do. Why do you think university used to be so cheap? States funded their university programs heavily, by paying 90% to 95% of their operating costs. That's why people could pay entirely for college including room and board on a part time summer job.

In the pursuit of lower taxes, states have had to cut back on funding, which in turn increased tuition. But well, it's your money. You want the education, then pay for it. That was the whole point of the tax cut. Of course, if you cut $100 from something that only 50% of people attend, then the cost will rise by $200 but well... if you were in favor of tax cuts, then that's what you wanted so I see little reason to feel sympathy if you think you're being priced out of university.

originally posted by: nfflhome
YOU nailed it. How about cutting all the fluff hours and making a degree
about 60 hours or about half the hours currently required. Just the classes vital to that degree.
2 years and out.

They're all vital and if you don't see that, and you went to college then you missed the entire point. If you didn't go to college, then you're honestly too stupid to attend (but they'll still likely let you in).

Lets start with actual domain knowledge. A Bachelors degree is typically a survey of a survey of a field. In the normal 120 hour program you'll get about 75 credit hours directly related to your major (in most states, in some like Ohio it has been reduced to 60 recently). 75 credit hours translates to roughly 17 classes. Each of those classes, will in turn expose you to one popular aspect of a field. In that class you will spend one to two weeks on any given sub topic in that class. However, each of those sub topics is then a very brief description of something that generally goes in depth.

There is quite simply not enough time to teach people enough to become experts, or even really entry level in such a time period.

The point of these classes isn't necessarily to teach you and make you competent. It's to make you aware of the field, and teach you that concepts exist. Experts will take each of these sub topics, specialize, and research it in depth. For every single topic that a college course spends a week on, someone can specialize and take 10+ classes on in order to discover the nuances in it. As a college student, you're supposed go latch onto some of these topics that interest you and do your own research into them in order to gain some sort of useful level of knowledge that can later be applied to the working world.

In addition to that, all of the general education requirements are important. They're more important than the major stuff honestly, because the backbone of any working environment is communication and that is what many of those classes focus on. The ones that don't focus on communication focus on exposing you to different systems of logic, which in turn is meant to be applied to problem solving.

If we want people to start being adequately educated in this country again, we need to add about another 4 grades to compulsory education, and then push bachelors degrees to closer to 200 credit hours.

originally posted by: Subsonic

originally posted by: nfflhome
YOU nailed it. How about cutting all the fluff hours and making a degree
about 60 hours or about half the hours currently required. Just the classes vital to that degree.
2 years and out.

That's what trade schools are supposed to be for - cutting right to the chase and teaching someone how to do a job. Historically, a 'Liberal Arts Education' was meant to create a well rounded individual, with knowledge spanning multiple fields throughout the humanities, maths, and sciences. This broad-based education takes many years to do, understandably, but was also not meant for everyone, but only a select few.

Sadly, it got twisted and bloated into its current form, and for some reason became a status symbol that everyone wanted to achieve.

Trade schools are for blue collar work. Blue collar work is being devalued by the day, and in another 40 years will almost entirely disappear. It has no future, because it does not educate individuals enough. It creates drones, not people who will revolutionize industries that can keep America competitive in a world where businesses generate revenue globally but spend it locally.

I find it interesting that the people who push against global economies and want everything to again be very isolationist, are generally the same folks who are stuck in jobs that only have an impact on local markets. Essentially, people who are failing to keep their skills competitive, want to try and change the economy, and withdraw from the world, and any advancements it may bring, so that they can avoid having to take responsibility and keep up to date with everyone else... yet these are also the same people who normally preach competition.

To give an example, if you get a job as a plumber, you only generate revenue where you're physically working. You need plumbers all over the world in order to generate revenue all over the world. That is an outdated business model. If you don't have global reach from the desk at your office, you aren't going to be competitive in the future. If enough people do this, which trade school encourages, then the entire country isn't competitive.

Economies are local, marketplaces are global. If you want to be successful in the future you either need to adapt your field to that reality, or if you can't do that... then change your field to one where someone else has already figured it out.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Problem is that there is a large gap between the education you get at "Harvard" level and "Backvalley Town".

Many other countries may not have "Harvard", but they aren't far behind, and their scope of eductational levels is far more narrow.

Which makes a diploma from "Backvalley Town_EU" far more valuable than from its counterpart in the US. And that is the problem, caused by an educational industry where the big boys buy out all the smaller ones in regards to higher qualified teachers and professors. Unknown to this extent to the rest of the world.

But you have Harvard and Yale. The rest can go suck a duck, it seems. What a waste of ressources, what a waste of money!

Actually, there's really not. You can divide education in the US along a couple of axis. One is networking. Schools like Harvard and Yale have great partnerships around the country, they're successful at funneling their graduates into good jobs. Because of this, those who get a good job tend to know a lot of other people who get good jobs. That's why the wealthy send their kids to these schools, it's all about networking.

In terms of the quality of teaching, they're really not much different. There's an argument that Ivy's are actually worse for that because most of them have adopted policies to never fail a student. The work it takes to get a C at Harvard would usually get someone kicked out of a state school. Harvard has an average GPA of 3.67, while state schools are closer to 2.5. Yes, Harvard does take only smart and hard working students, but these averages are looking only at the graduates at the schools.

But, then between the lower tier schools there are some that are bad. Usually any given university will have good and bad programs and one needs to pick and choose where they go based on the program. In anything good though, a decent program equips you just as well in terms of knowledge as an Ivy, the primary difference is in networking. But, those who are talented/lucky wind up advancing in their careers and 5-10 years out of university are in the same spots as the Harvard graduates.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
How about fixing our high schools?

Seriously, why do we send out kids to school for 13 years "k-12" just to tell them that they need 4 more years to know anything?

What you they learning in high school...

Grade school has nothing to do with teaching people how to make a living. It primarily exists to teach you how to do basic tasks in the world, like hopefully not behave in ways that are completely unacceptable socially, do your taxes, and hopefully be literate enough to be able to write your own name.

Honestly, it really isn't equipped to do much more than that. The main reason why it can't do much more than that, is that childrens brains aren't developed enough to understand more nuanced situations until they're nearly old enough to be graduating. As such, most of the education process that we value such as critical thinking can't even be taught during the majority of a students time in grade school.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
I'm actually not supporting the current model, I don't believe student loans should be forgiven and I think grants and scholarships should be much more strict requiring a 3.0 minimum to keep them and repayment for any person receiving them and failing out of college.

If you require a specific GPA all you do is cause grade inflation so that students hit that GPA. Furthermore, GPA is not reflective of knowledge or ability. At best it loosely correlates, but it's very loose.

a reply to: Subsonic

In not so many years from now nobody will need anything beyond a basic education as people will just ask Google Siri or whatever and believe the answers unquestionably.

AI will be doing are thinking for us and are brains will entropy further.

Colleges will do just fine so long as most jobs require degrees.

Now useless degrees may go the way of the dodo but that's fine. Many of the facilities will close down and many useless degree professors will be regulated to teaching in regular school causing them to take a substantial paycut.

Colleges will just have to restructure reorganize and sell off the no longer used facilities for something else resulting in smaller more focused campuses connected to what will most likely become classrooms converted to office buildings.

a reply to: surfer_soul

Calculators didn’t negate our need for people who can do math. They merely sped up the process and accuracy for the simple stuff. The demand for real math skills are higher than ever.

That some people didn’t learn them means nothing, as they wouldn’t have bothered to learn without a calculator either. Always accessible search engines are no different.

a reply to: surfer_soul

Calculators didn’t negate our need for people who can do math. They merely sped up the process and accuracy for the simple stuff. The demand for real math skills are higher than ever.

That some people didn’t learn them means nothing, as they wouldn’t have bothered to learn without a calculator either. Always accessible search engines are no different.

Double.

Triple.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Subsonic

The internet is not free. Scientific papers, articles and books are not available for everyone, they cost a ton of money.
Taking classes and being able to ask someone and having your own thoughts on a subject corrected is a big difference to just read a little about it also.
Free education means earning certificates to get a better job.
What you say is just not true.

It's true of course that the internet is not free, but nearly everyone has access one way or another these days. Also, public libraries nearly always maintain subscriptions to any number of pay-wall online resources. And public libraries are indeed free, so yes you can actually access those academic papers online by going to your local library.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Subsonic

Here's the thing, those online courses are crap. Not all of them, but most are. Things like Coursera and Udacity are scams. That is not knowledge, it is watching a youtube video. It is one way communication when the point of university is two way communication. Class time is literally the most inconsequential part of college. Yes, you go to class, but you're supposed to be using university resources to do your own further study in the off time.

I don't think you understand what online education is. Coursera and Udacity are actually not crap, but they also aren't really what I'm referring to. Proper online education is nearly always delivered through an LMS (learning management system), typically Moodle, Blackboard, or Canvas, which are the three major players in the field. These are classes that are run by an actual instructor (sometimes referred to as a facilitator), includes online live chat functionality and group discussion forums so that students can communicate with one another, and absolutely includes homework and tests. These are fully accredited programs that are every bit as valuable as an in-person class. Now granted, this level of online education is NOT free, but it's far less expensive than traditional education.

As for internships, they are absolutely NOT worthless. How do you think anyone ever learned anything before formal secondary education for the masses came along in the second half of the 20th century? They worked as an apprentice, or as we call them now interns, and learned on the job. Talk to any teacher today with an education degree, and they'll tell you they learned more in their one semester of student teaching than they did in their 4+ years sitting in a classroom.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Subsonic

Can you imagine the amount of tax payer subsidies it would take in order to provide "free" degrees?

We know that subsidizing almost any industry causes the prices to skyrocket and the quality of the service or good to decline.

The so called producers no longer have an incentive to cut costs or improve their product, primarily because they are guaranteed money.

Tens of thousands of dollars per year per student to get a degree, which in this economic environment will get you a job at Starbucks.

Yes, I can. Because it's what we used to do. Why do you think university used to be so cheap? States funded their university programs heavily, by paying 90% to 95% of their operating costs. That's why people could pay entirely for college including room and board on a part time summer job.

In the pursuit of lower taxes, states have had to cut back on funding, which in turn increased tuition. But well, it's your money. You want the education, then pay for it. That was the whole point of the tax cut. Of course, if you cut $100 from something that only 50% of people attend, then the cost will rise by $200 but well... if you were in favor of tax cuts, then that's what you wanted so I see little reason to feel sympathy if you think you're being priced out of university.

This is only partly true, and only applies to public universities, not private colleges and universities. The main reasons for secondary education becoming so expensive is two-fold: Higher expectations of free stuff provided for students, and government regulations/student loan programs.

If you want to know why college has become so expensive over the last, say 30 years, here are a few examples of things colleges have to do in 2019 that they didn't have to do in 1989 in order to attract students and be in government compliance:

Free wifi with unlimited bandwidth vs. did not exist
Free laptops and software for every student vs. did not exist
4 person suites with private bathrooms and granite countertops vs. 10x10 cinder block dorm rooms and community bathrooms
Title IX office vs. did not exist
Diversity and Equity office vs. did not exist
Information Technology department vs. did not exist
Food courts with multiple commercial dining options vs. dorm cafeteria serving s*** on a shingle
State of the art sports facilities

etc. etc. etc, I could go on and on. I think you get it...