Get Out While You Can(insidehighered.com)
insidehighered.com
Get Out While You Can
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/08/19/miller_essay_on_how_faculty_should_get_out_before_higher_education_collapses
9 comments
Like every single article on the subject, the author fails to propose an alternate credential system that will replace college. Will some academics (like the author) lose their jobs to technology? Probably, but that has little to do with the credential aspect of a degree.
Outside of The Professions, where is college an effective credential system? College is clearly not that important in our field. Even at the companies that most famously do use degrees as selection criteria, the requirement is trivially circumvented with the right work experience.
Getting a job as a mid-level manager in government service is very difficult without a degree, unless you are old enough to grandfather in when things were different. And even if you do get a job, there will be a noticeable level of weirdness around you because you didn't finish college.
Note that you don't have to go to a particularly good school -- it is government service, after all.
I think a similar thing is true -- I would be interested in knowing how many people at supervisor or above at, say, Netflix (or an oil company) don't have a degree? I don't know... hopefully other people can share anecdotal evidence ;)
Note that you don't have to go to a particularly good school -- it is government service, after all.
I think a similar thing is true -- I would be interested in knowing how many people at supervisor or above at, say, Netflix (or an oil company) don't have a degree? I don't know... hopefully other people can share anecdotal evidence ;)
One tricky thing about this is that demographically, most people that end up in "white collar" jobs do get degrees. But I think that's post-hoc evidence for the implied requirement of a degree. Those same people might have done just as well (or even better, considering the 4 years opportunity cost of a degree) without college.
I don't think you have any real evidence for whether the association of white-collar job and degree is post-hoc or not? Do you? Without evidence, it's kind of a cheap shot.
I don't think we need to cite sources to suggest that white collar jobs tend to be filled by people above the socioeconomic median, or the fact that the same demographic cohort overwhelmingly tends to go to college. The middle class goes to university (a) because it's a default, (b) because it's part of the middle class lifestyle, and (c) because it's perceived as necessary for a career. Only 1/3rd of those reasons are about credentials.†
Stipulating the fact that jobs are just statistically going to be filled by people who automatically got degrees, I don't think it's a stretch (or a cheap shot) to suggest that the relationship between jobs and school is tenuous.
Moreover, given the fact that white collar jobs in large companies tend to be managed conservatively, and the fact that people without degrees are outliers (because almost every applicant for any job went to college by default), some of the "credentialing effect" of a degree is actually just an observational bias.
† Note also the preponderance of college attendees who attain degrees that are almost objectively without credentialing merit, such as the liberal arts.††
†† "Without credentialing merit" being intended as an objective statement and not as an argument that people shouldn't get liberal arts degrees; I think most degrees are without credentialing merit.
Stipulating the fact that jobs are just statistically going to be filled by people who automatically got degrees, I don't think it's a stretch (or a cheap shot) to suggest that the relationship between jobs and school is tenuous.
Moreover, given the fact that white collar jobs in large companies tend to be managed conservatively, and the fact that people without degrees are outliers (because almost every applicant for any job went to college by default), some of the "credentialing effect" of a degree is actually just an observational bias.
† Note also the preponderance of college attendees who attain degrees that are almost objectively without credentialing merit, such as the liberal arts.††
†† "Without credentialing merit" being intended as an objective statement and not as an argument that people shouldn't get liberal arts degrees; I think most degrees are without credentialing merit.
Let's look at this as a logic problem.
You say college has no causal effect, I say college has a causal effect (granting that we aren't talking about credentialing degrees, blah, blah).
The best you have done is destroy my argument in favor of causation; however, this doesn't imply that you are correct for NO causation, just that my argument doesn't work (maybe correct). To prove no causation you would have to evaluate all possible arguments for it, and show them all to be wrong. (good luck)
However, I do have partial evidence for causality based on the association between college and white collar jobs. I am basing this on the "warrant" that P(causation| association) >= P(causation) -- if there is association, the likelihood of causation is higher or the same.
So how about this: neither of us can say for sure whether college helps, but I have a little bit of faulty evidence and you have no evidence whatsoever.
We are in the same situation as most social scientists -- the evidence for anything really sucks, and is nowhere like the evidence for hard science propositions. However, very important policy decisions have to be made based on this faulty evidence. What most people do is pretend be sure and so guarantee they act foolishly.
You say college has no causal effect, I say college has a causal effect (granting that we aren't talking about credentialing degrees, blah, blah).
The best you have done is destroy my argument in favor of causation; however, this doesn't imply that you are correct for NO causation, just that my argument doesn't work (maybe correct). To prove no causation you would have to evaluate all possible arguments for it, and show them all to be wrong. (good luck)
However, I do have partial evidence for causality based on the association between college and white collar jobs. I am basing this on the "warrant" that P(causation| association) >= P(causation) -- if there is association, the likelihood of causation is higher or the same.
So how about this: neither of us can say for sure whether college helps, but I have a little bit of faulty evidence and you have no evidence whatsoever.
We are in the same situation as most social scientists -- the evidence for anything really sucks, and is nowhere like the evidence for hard science propositions. However, very important policy decisions have to be made based on this faulty evidence. What most people do is pretend be sure and so guarantee they act foolishly.
I think you're going through a lot of trouble to formalize an argument I'm not even contesting. I'm talking about the minimal value of a degree as a credential outside the Professions; you're arguing with a fictitious third party who says they have zero importance anywhere.
>I'm talking about the minimal value of a degree as a credential outside the Professions; you're arguing with a fictitious third party who says they have zero importance anywhere.
Umm, wrong. I am arguing with the "minimal value of a degree as a credential outside the Professions". I have made that clear, by statements to the effect of "granting the professions are a different case."
I am saying -- I have limited evidence for causality in the effect of a degree (outside the professions), and you have no evidence for the absence of causality .
It's all good though...
Umm, wrong. I am arguing with the "minimal value of a degree as a credential outside the Professions". I have made that clear, by statements to the effect of "granting the professions are a different case."
I am saying -- I have limited evidence for causality in the effect of a degree (outside the professions), and you have no evidence for the absence of causality .
It's all good though...
We're discussing a difference of (small) degree, and your point is that correlation is sometimes causation?
Ok? Stipulated? Now what?
Ok? Stipulated? Now what?
No, I am arguing that my lack of a good argument does not imply that the converse argument is true.
So ... retract your argument that college has no credentialling value in getting a white collar job (outside of the professions) ;) You have no evidence.
(Heuristically, I have evidence, but it is poor. But poor is better than none.)
So ... retract your argument that college has no credentialling value in getting a white collar job (outside of the professions) ;) You have no evidence.
(Heuristically, I have evidence, but it is poor. But poor is better than none.)
I gave specific pieces of evidence: sales, technology, trading, marketing. Rebut.
Outside of the silicon valley/ tech industry, it's impossible to get a decent job without a degree.
You mean except in trading, sales, marketing, and management of those fields and technology? Like I said: outside the Professions, where is the degree an absolute requirement?
A degree is necessary to be an accountant, a lawyer, a doctor, or an (non-computing) engineer. But that's a small slice of the overall workforce.
And sure, especially in the Fortune 1000, companies strongly consider degrees even outside the professions. But I guarantee you that success in (say) sales has almost nothing to do with the degree (or lack thereof) you start with, and management of sales teams has everything to do with prior sales success.
A degree is necessary to be an accountant, a lawyer, a doctor, or an (non-computing) engineer. But that's a small slice of the overall workforce.
And sure, especially in the Fortune 1000, companies strongly consider degrees even outside the professions. But I guarantee you that success in (say) sales has almost nothing to do with the degree (or lack thereof) you start with, and management of sales teams has everything to do with prior sales success.
There might be verbiage like "B.A. or equivalent experience" on the description, but if it is a managerial position I think 90% is B.A, 10% is equivalent experience. So, there may be no literal requirement, but there is still a de facto requirement.
Sales may be an exception here -- though I would hazard a guess that to sell software for IBM to governments and businesses, my above comment would apply. To sell real estate, though, nobody really cares (same for cars, etc).
Sales may be an exception here -- though I would hazard a guess that to sell software for IBM to governments and businesses, my above comment would apply. To sell real estate, though, nobody really cares (same for cars, etc).
Getting hired externally into a management role probably does require a degree, but many of these positions are filled internally, and if you are (e.g.) a star sales account manager or responsible for the company's most successful marketing program, the degree is probably a non-issue when you bid for the promotion.
Evidence? Seems plausible or common knowledge, but lots of wrong things seem plausible or common knowledge (remember Columbus and falling off the side of the earth?)
You can't get a job as a secretary without a degree these days.
There is a bubble in Silicon Valley, but it's not an economic one...
There is a bubble in Silicon Valley, but it's not an economic one...
I have a friend at a Fortune 500 where I used to work who started working as an administrative assistant (secretary) and now 4 years later is a project manager and is making more than I did as a fresh out of college as a junior dev. She only has a high school diploma. I can think of at least three other similar examples at the same financial institution.
There are lots of ways into "real" jobs without a degree if you're smart and you find the right path into the career you want (obviously this does not work for professions with licensing bodies).
There are lots of ways into "real" jobs without a degree if you're smart and you find the right path into the career you want (obviously this does not work for professions with licensing bodies).
Yeah I think you're just wrong.
It seems to work ok for subjects like chemistry, biological sciences, and other engineering disciplines.
You can't perform experiments in chemistry or material science on a laptop. The practice oriented classes in these fields often require facilities and equipment that are too expensive for individuals to purchase. Hence why in those fields college credentials is a variable with r > 0 for on the job competence. In contrast, it costs about $600 dollars in computer equipment and used books in order to get started in programming or security. The security industry in particular reflects this. Over half of the guys running top security companies either don't have a degree or have one from a highly technical college. Hell, the guy running cyber security research for the government has a music degree.
I've been meeting with two high school teachers from Silicon Valley who are enthusiastic about technology - especially "edtech" (education technology) - while still retaining a critical eye towards them. They are also remarkable teachers who apply as much science as art to their classrooms. One of them even crafted an organizational & classroom management system several years ago and has been training new, willing teachers in that system. Both also have impressive backgrounds (one is a Harvard grad, in case you care about that sorta thing) and work at a high school that serves a predominantly low-income, underprivileged population.
Long story short, these are the educators of the future. They aren't afraid technology and have evolved their teaching styles to mesh with it well. And younger teachers who are rising through the ranks now will be even more tech-savvy and progressive in mindset.
I'm pretty sure James Miller is correct in his article that higher education, as it is today, will change significantly. It has to. But I don't necessarily think it will mean a significant drop in demand for college professors. Perhaps there will be a significant drop in demand for bad college professors, but not good ones with an evolved teaching style (whatever that will be).
Long story short, these are the educators of the future. They aren't afraid technology and have evolved their teaching styles to mesh with it well. And younger teachers who are rising through the ranks now will be even more tech-savvy and progressive in mindset.
I'm pretty sure James Miller is correct in his article that higher education, as it is today, will change significantly. It has to. But I don't necessarily think it will mean a significant drop in demand for college professors. Perhaps there will be a significant drop in demand for bad college professors, but not good ones with an evolved teaching style (whatever that will be).
I try to learn online but I find it really hard. It is very distracting. I find a real person teaching me to be much more effective.
I disagree with his argument. While it is certainly quite possible that there will be a collapse in education for the liberal arts, the field of engineering will need higher education for a long time to come. Of course, many classes may be taken online, which lessens the necessity. However, I have yet to see an online lab course. Equipment is expensive, and proper training is important. I can't imagine that many people would hire an engineer who had no experience outside of online classes, regardless of whether or not they obtained a degree.
Beyond the basics of education, graduate studies are something you can't just "do online" (yet). You may need a lab, need a professor to work with, and you certainly need funding for whatever you are researching. While education as we know it is bound to change, I think that the technical side of most universities is in no immediate danger.
Beyond the basics of education, graduate studies are something you can't just "do online" (yet). You may need a lab, need a professor to work with, and you certainly need funding for whatever you are researching. While education as we know it is bound to change, I think that the technical side of most universities is in no immediate danger.
> I have yet to see an online lab course. Equipment is expensive, and proper training is important...
The students can rent the equipment and acquire training online.
The students can rent the equipment and acquire training online.
This obviously doesn't work for mining engineering or nuclear engineering students.
They can tour the mine or nuclear reactor, or work there. Colleges and universities add nothing to this.
The pervading opinion I've seen over the years is that University degrees are mainly arbitrary hurdles for professional jobs. I don't necessarily agree, but that is besides my point. If people at large really think University is an extravagant waste then we are now in a position, to do as the op suggests, and implement the technology to "fix" that "problem". Technology optimizes many other areas, even ones as deeply entrenched as post secondary education. It's not as if we will have to throw all the tenure profs. to the wolves either, someone is going to have to be curator of the online material after all. Things change, sometimes even in academia.
It's not as if we will have to throw all the tenure profs. to the wolves either, someone is going to have to be curator of the online material after all.
This was precisely my thought in reading through the segment of the article dramatizing the "mortal threat information technology poses". The author alludes to artificial intelligence sufficiently capable of replacing a college professor in 20 years and attempts to tie this "threat" to today's economic and political climate and his own vague predictions of both 20 years down the line. It's not as if a professor could be adequately replaced by an AI tomorrow.
As it currently stands, online or not, a professor with appropriate knowledge is necessary to prepare and teach a course. It's not as if the job position vanishes when a course is taught online. As a current student who has taken five out of two dozen courses online: an effective professor is still key to teaching material to students, whether the classroom is physical or virtual.
This was precisely my thought in reading through the segment of the article dramatizing the "mortal threat information technology poses". The author alludes to artificial intelligence sufficiently capable of replacing a college professor in 20 years and attempts to tie this "threat" to today's economic and political climate and his own vague predictions of both 20 years down the line. It's not as if a professor could be adequately replaced by an AI tomorrow.
As it currently stands, online or not, a professor with appropriate knowledge is necessary to prepare and teach a course. It's not as if the job position vanishes when a course is taught online. As a current student who has taken five out of two dozen courses online: an effective professor is still key to teaching material to students, whether the classroom is physical or virtual.
I can't help but be reminded of Mike Rowe's (the host of Dirty Jobs) testimony before congress. There is going to be a major shift in attitudes towards going to college when the average Masters student realizes that the starting salary for skilled labor (i.e. electrician, plumber, etc) is higher than what they can expect to make. In my humble opinion, college gives the average BA student a whole slew of soft skills and trivial knowledge that adds little value to a company straight out of school.
I agree with the professor's sentiment. Technology is and will continue to change education. Non-research professors will decline in demand.
But he sites a common misinterpretation of Moore's Law as his evidence. Moore's Law doesn't say computing power (or speed) will double every 1 1/2 years, but the number transistors in microprocessors will double. But because of heat concerns we've had to move to multi-core processors, and the speed has hit a plateau. People might think "I've got two cores, so I'm twice as fast", which is completely incorrect.
Computing power is increasing, but there is no evidence that in 20 years it will increase 2^20.
edit: actually, he's wrong on the 2^20 too. It's every 1 1/2 years, so it's more like 2^13= 8192 (let's say 10,000) times faster.
But he sites a common misinterpretation of Moore's Law as his evidence. Moore's Law doesn't say computing power (or speed) will double every 1 1/2 years, but the number transistors in microprocessors will double. But because of heat concerns we've had to move to multi-core processors, and the speed has hit a plateau. People might think "I've got two cores, so I'm twice as fast", which is completely incorrect.
Computing power is increasing, but there is no evidence that in 20 years it will increase 2^20.
edit: actually, he's wrong on the 2^20 too. It's every 1 1/2 years, so it's more like 2^13= 8192 (let's say 10,000) times faster.
True, but everyone tells people to be realistic and not idealistic. I think that's one (not the only) reason for things becoming better.
In today's world swimming with the crowd is what works best for most people. Not because it is better, but because everyone does and therefore don't know anything else.
However continuing to live without a plan won't really get you anywhere either, so "works best" isn't completely true.
In today's world swimming with the crowd is what works best for most people. Not because it is better, but because everyone does and therefore don't know anything else.
However continuing to live without a plan won't really get you anywhere either, so "works best" isn't completely true.
Tenured professors at research universities are 90% there to do research, not to teach. I don't think they're replaceable in that way.