College for Grownups(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
College for Grownups
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/opinion/college-for-grown-ups.html
11 comments
Ask anyone who graduated from Harvard (undergrad), HBS, HLS, etc. about the Harvard Extension School and you'll get the eye-roll I'm talking about. I think in cases like this it's less because of the adult part but more because of the payola part -- anyone can sign up for HES classes provided they pay.
So it's like the regular Harvard admissions process, then.
EDIT: Just a little joke. But I'm not sure there's much of a difference between someone attending an expensive "prep school or outstanding high school" and someone paying a lot of money to enter a top-tier university. Attending such schools isn't a guarantee of admission, but being from a rich background boosts your chances by unreasonable margins. http://posttrib.chicagotribune.com/news/24598924-418/high-sc...
There are clear advantages to attending a top–tiered high school, as can be seen from college admissions data. The Harvard Crimson recently reported that in Harvard’s Class of 2017, six per cent of admitted students came from only 10 high schools. Eleven percent of high schools with students admitted to Harvard sent 36 percent of students, while 74 percent of schools sent only one student. Clearly where you went to high school plays a major role in whether or not you are admitted to Harvard.
So it's like the regular Harvard admissions process, then.
EDIT: Just a little joke. But I'm not sure there's much of a difference between someone attending an expensive "prep school or outstanding high school" and someone paying a lot of money to enter a top-tier university. Attending such schools isn't a guarantee of admission, but being from a rich background boosts your chances by unreasonable margins. http://posttrib.chicagotribune.com/news/24598924-418/high-sc...
There are clear advantages to attending a top–tiered high school, as can be seen from college admissions data. The Harvard Crimson recently reported that in Harvard’s Class of 2017, six per cent of admitted students came from only 10 high schools. Eleven percent of high schools with students admitted to Harvard sent 36 percent of students, while 74 percent of schools sent only one student. Clearly where you went to high school plays a major role in whether or not you are admitted to Harvard.
No you're not. My background is biochemistry (UK degree), biomedical image processing (UK PhD) and web development (self-taught). After a decade of academic research in medical imaging, I'm now moving more towards pure tech. I'd love to go back to uni, say full time for 6-12 months, either in the US or UK, and rigorously study the fundamentals of Computer Science, however I haven't found a mechanism that really works for me.
An additional undergrad degree is too long and slow - I know I can study MUCH more efficiently than I could when I was 18, and I also want to be very focused on CS, so most of a US undergrad course would be a waste of time to me. On the other hand, a 1 year Masters is too advanced, since I don't have a firm grasp of the basics.
Online courses are definitely filling the gap but I feel like I learn faster with human interaction and mentoring. Bootcamps are okay to an extent (I'm currently doing The Firehose Project to learn some industry web dev practices, and they provide great mentoring and group projects), but they only advance your skills so far, and probably not up to the level I expect you'd be at after completing the first year of CS. It'd be great to see some different options out there which provide the rigour and cater to a more mature audience.
An additional undergrad degree is too long and slow - I know I can study MUCH more efficiently than I could when I was 18, and I also want to be very focused on CS, so most of a US undergrad course would be a waste of time to me. On the other hand, a 1 year Masters is too advanced, since I don't have a firm grasp of the basics.
Online courses are definitely filling the gap but I feel like I learn faster with human interaction and mentoring. Bootcamps are okay to an extent (I'm currently doing The Firehose Project to learn some industry web dev practices, and they provide great mentoring and group projects), but they only advance your skills so far, and probably not up to the level I expect you'd be at after completing the first year of CS. It'd be great to see some different options out there which provide the rigour and cater to a more mature audience.
This is pretty much the target, a 2 year program that covers basics to mastery in a particular subject. I have seen folks who have put together curriculums for that out of MOOC lists but it hasn't gotten nearly the attention it deserves. My theory is that if could retrain for a new discipline in 2 years it would strongly mitigate the notion of 'structural' unemployment. Particularly if you already had the basics down (aka an undergraduate degree). I suggested to the Alumni group at USC that such a program, a "mini-bachelors+masters" might make for something they could provide their alumni (or others) that would both get them more tuition dollars and help people.
Someone somewhere needs to be working on this. I also want something shorter and faster than an undergrad degree and more focused on CS than boot camps appear to be.
Ask anyone who graduated from Harvard (undergrad), HBS, HLS, etc. about the Harvard Extension School and you'll get the eye-roll I'm talking about. I think in cases like this it's less because of the adult part but more because of the payola part -- anyone can sign up for HES classes provided they pay.
The eye-rolls also occur because of a large number of students and graduates who try to pass themselves off as students/alumni of Harvard College, GSAS, or the Business School.
It's unfortunate, because the high-profile impostors and resume exaggerations detract from the fact that it takes a lot of work to be accepted to a degree program and complete the requirements to graduate. In addition, there are some high-quality offerings in certain fields -- for instance, the post-bacc for students interested in going to medical school, as well as the on-campus classes taught by Harvard faculty.
The eye-rolls also occur because of a large number of students and graduates who try to pass themselves off as students/alumni of Harvard College, GSAS, or the Business School.
It's unfortunate, because the high-profile impostors and resume exaggerations detract from the fact that it takes a lot of work to be accepted to a degree program and complete the requirements to graduate. In addition, there are some high-quality offerings in certain fields -- for instance, the post-bacc for students interested in going to medical school, as well as the on-campus classes taught by Harvard faculty.
I think if people are going to questions "adult education" they might question how you got 2 undergrad degrees.
Some universities have a "Graduate Certificate" program where you can take graduate classes. They can be hard to find on websites. They seem to have worked well for a couple of my friends who took them to help them change career directions.
I started taking graduate CS classes for a certificate at Pace (my undergrad was in civil engineering), which ended up being helpful completing a Masters Program at Northeastern.
for example: http://www.pace.edu/seidenberg/seidenberg-programs/graduate-...
Some universities have a "Graduate Certificate" program where you can take graduate classes. They can be hard to find on websites. They seem to have worked well for a couple of my friends who took them to help them change career directions.
I started taking graduate CS classes for a certificate at Pace (my undergrad was in civil engineering), which ended up being helpful completing a Masters Program at Northeastern.
for example: http://www.pace.edu/seidenberg/seidenberg-programs/graduate-...
In my university they had this. There were always 1-2 50+ people following the lectures (math & physics). Only one of them was ever able to complete a course successfully, and that was with immense effort. He basically spent more effort on one course than the rest of the students spent on the entire curriculum. It was inspiring to see the drive he had, but it's not feasible to complete a whole major that way. I'm not sure if that's related to age or just that the people who apply later in life are statistically different than those who apply out of high school.
At the University of Minnesota, those with degrees from the university can audit courses at a greatly reduced rate. I'm not sure whether this applies to online courses, but it's very likely that it does. During my undergraduate education there, I encountered many such post-degree students; they were quite a joy to have in class.
That's awesome. Question: Could those post-degree auditors get any credit for those classes? Or was it simply for the content?
It's simply for the content, not credit. I assume that if they wanted to get a second degree, they would have to reenroll. I should point out that university employees could also take classes for free, while earning credit; though there have been some cuts to this program recently, if I recall.
Sounds like a great idea to me!
I dislike the condescending attitude of the author towards the young adults (referred to in the article as "children") attending college. The author claims that leaving home to live at college poses a "serious psychological risk". Are we talking about 18-year-olds or 5-year-olds? Are we afraid that these more-or-less fully fledged citizens, whom we allow to drive, smoke, enlist, vote, marry, and have children, are going to end up crying for their mommies and daddies because they left home too early? Ridiculous.
Where these "psychological risks" exist, it's probably more a symptom of failing to ween teenagers from parental dependence and teach personal responsibility than it is a symptom of college life.
To quote a younger friend of mine, who started college this year after bumming around Europe for a while: "After spending a few months 'in the wild', living in this relatively very supervised college environment seems absolutely mundane."
Where these "psychological risks" exist, it's probably more a symptom of failing to ween teenagers from parental dependence and teach personal responsibility than it is a symptom of college life.
To quote a younger friend of mine, who started college this year after bumming around Europe for a while: "After spending a few months 'in the wild', living in this relatively very supervised college environment seems absolutely mundane."
Fully fledged citizen and adult are two concepts that deserve a distinction: http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html
Most 18 year olds are nowhere near mature enough to take college education as seriously as it deserves to be taken.
Most 18 year olds are nowhere near mature enough to take college education as seriously as it deserves to be taken.
>Most 18 year olds are nowhere near mature enough to take college education as seriously as it deserves to be taken.
But they're mature enough to kill for and be killed for the national military (sometimes against their will), contribute to governmental policy decisions, and have children?
Just because their brains are still plastic doesn't preclude them from making good (or at least reasonable) decisions.
But they're mature enough to kill for and be killed for the national military (sometimes against their will), contribute to governmental policy decisions, and have children?
Just because their brains are still plastic doesn't preclude them from making good (or at least reasonable) decisions.
>But they're mature enough to kill for and be killed for the national military (sometimes against their will), contribute to governmental policy decisions, and have children?
I don't think they are mature enough for that, no. We weren't arguing that part (at least not yet). 21 would be a much more reasonable age for that, but 25 would probably be best. There's a reason that you can't rent a car below 21 and that you have to make a significant extra payment below 25.
I don't think they are mature enough for that, no. We weren't arguing that part (at least not yet). 21 would be a much more reasonable age for that, but 25 would probably be best. There's a reason that you can't rent a car below 21 and that you have to make a significant extra payment below 25.
Are you proposing preventing people from having children below 25? That seems incredibly draconian and intrusive.
Are you also proposing preventing people from joining the military below 25? In terms of a male physical's peak, 25 is pretty late on in the game to start trying to train him to be a soldier.
Are you also proposing preventing people from joining the military below 25? In terms of a male physical's peak, 25 is pretty late on in the game to start trying to train him to be a soldier.
No, I'm not proposing that at all, however, we certainly discourage people from having children at a young age. Military leadership could fairly easily adjust its recruitment practices, it relies far less on physical aptitude nowadays. Regardless, I don't really think this tangent is relevant to the discussion of college education.
You can shift mean college attendance age in a myriad of ways. Off the top of my head, bring public universities back under federal funding, reduce the for profit motives. Then start preferentially admitting students with a year or more of work experience as well as the current academic standards.
You can shift mean college attendance age in a myriad of ways. Off the top of my head, bring public universities back under federal funding, reduce the for profit motives. Then start preferentially admitting students with a year or more of work experience as well as the current academic standards.
Honestly I think many 18 year olds would be well served to go through a good 2-4 years of national service before university. Being a private in the Army takes a lot less maturity and self-direction than being a freshman in university.
There has been some research which suggests that there are some psychological risks in going to college. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/15/leibow
What this article, and many commentators in this thread, are forgetting is that the college/university system is not designed primarily for education. The reason why the college system is tailored toward young adults is because we as a culture have decided that college is the place for young adults to "find themselves." College is often the first time young adults begin living on their own; putting them in a structured institution with their peers is how many kids learn how to "grow up" (in particular, the children of privileged individuals who also want their children to receive some sort of education/job training). There are other issues with the higher education as an institution, but the segregation between older adults ("nontraditional" students) is not one of them, nor is the seeming lack of responsibility found at college (though sexual assault and substance abuse are serious issues that need to be addressed) - it's a defining part of the American "college experience."
It could be argued that you can "find yourself" without college, and while that's absolutely true I would say that it's hard to find a better institution to do so (other problems like rising tuition/loans notwithstanding).
It could be argued that you can "find yourself" without college, and while that's absolutely true I would say that it's hard to find a better institution to do so (other problems like rising tuition/loans notwithstanding).
This is actually pretty uniquely American. In Australia, for example, the major universities are within the major cities, often downtown; there are hardly any "university towns." As such, there's no real need to move out of parents' home if they live in the city, parents generally are more adaptive and respect the autonomy of their now adult children even if they're still living upstairs. Obviously this dramatically lowers the costs of university. In addition, there's a higher concentration of jobs available to work while you study in major cities, instead of just hanging out in dorms or frat houses playing video games with all your free time like many American students do. Juggling these responsibilities while studying and being close to your family will make one "grow up" and develop a solid work ethic much quicker than the extended summer camp that often American universities become.
Sports are handled by amateur leagues abundant in the cities, not affiliated and part of universities. Not really the tribalism you see with big American schools amongst alumni either, not like what I grew up with in Texas, which is really off-putting and absurd.
Overall, I think both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but I think the Australian way is just healthier for everyone.
Sports are handled by amateur leagues abundant in the cities, not affiliated and part of universities. Not really the tribalism you see with big American schools amongst alumni either, not like what I grew up with in Texas, which is really off-putting and absurd.
Overall, I think both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but I think the Australian way is just healthier for everyone.
We're arguing exactly the design that you seem to be espousing. Taking into account cost, immaturity due to biological constraints at age 18-22 and rampant party culture, college is a particularily bad place to "find yourself". Young adults should be exposed to a wide diversity in age and demographics, not locked into a small area with a largely homogeneous group of individuals to "grow up". All of this was touched upon in the article. In my opinion, the American "college experience" is in dire need of reconsideration.
> rampant party culture
This greatly depends on the particular university. I really doubt there's much of a party at places like Cal Poly, Georgia Tech, or MIT when you compare them to FSU or a place like the University of Arizona.
This greatly depends on the particular university. I really doubt there's much of a party at places like Cal Poly, Georgia Tech, or MIT when you compare them to FSU or a place like the University of Arizona.
Can't speak for Cal Poly, but there's a lot of binge drinking at the other two on the list for sure. The parties might just be a little less fun, but just as drunk...
The parties at GT and MIT are more like really tame happy hours that resemble office events rather than actual parties. They don't even come close to what you get at FSU and Arizona State which is almost 24/7
Ah. Ha. Ha. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFbDZyHxL2g
Unfortunately this just serves to further illustrate my point
That's what you chose to demonstrate that MIT is a party school?
Well there's that, and there's the fraternities. MIT, in my experience of having lived in Cambridge, is very much "work hard, play hard" for its undergrads.
Dude, GT also has a drinking song as it's official school song; yet there are no real parties on campus - you know regular events with tons and tons of debauchery. I think this is what you don't get if you've never experienced a real party school: there's mainly only playing hard and there's barely any work for a lot of your time there (or even all of it if you so choose). There are classes where all you have to do is show up and you'll pass...
>I think this is what you don't get if you've never experienced a real party school: there's mainly only playing hard and there's barely any work for a lot of your time there (or even all of it if you so choose).
Funny thing: I did my undergrad at the famously party-focused UMass Amherst, and it wasn't like that at all.
Funny thing: I did my undergrad at the famously party-focused UMass Amherst, and it wasn't like that at all.
I don't feel that party schools can exist in places that have a good amount of snow and ice but that's my opinion. It's also possible not to experience the pitfalls of a party school even if you attend one if you hang with the right crowd.
I agree with exactly what you wrote. I also wanted to add that adults have many things that teens don't have yet such as money, reputation, and experience. Universities tend to bolster the last two.
College was originally for people who acted like grownups -- at 18 years old -- because those who went 100(+) years ago were expected to take it seriously.
Unfortunately, as time has gone on, at least in the US, colleges are spending more and more money on 'club-med'ing their dorms and such, giving the wrong impression of why you are on a campus to begin with -- and colleges are somewhat complicit in not caring nowadays about your success either, just in taking money from as many students as they can fill the place up with each year.
Unfortunately, as time has gone on, at least in the US, colleges are spending more and more money on 'club-med'ing their dorms and such, giving the wrong impression of why you are on a campus to begin with -- and colleges are somewhat complicit in not caring nowadays about your success either, just in taking money from as many students as they can fill the place up with each year.
> College was originally for people who acted like grownups -- at 18 years old -- because those who went 100(+) years ago were expected to take it seriously
Not as much as you might think. You can find stories going all the way back to medieval times of university students getting drunk and tearing up the local town. It's just part of the deal -- a major requirement for study is leisure, and if you give young people large amounts of self-directed leisure time some of them are going to use it to behave immaturely.
Not as much as you might think. You can find stories going all the way back to medieval times of university students getting drunk and tearing up the local town. It's just part of the deal -- a major requirement for study is leisure, and if you give young people large amounts of self-directed leisure time some of them are going to use it to behave immaturely.
> 'club-med'ing their dorms and such,
No kidding. My university in the early 2000's started jacking up tuition every year by crazy amounts. And at the same time started building boutique cafes, little gazebos, parks, a new sports center with a large inside heated pool and a lazy river snaking its away around its perimeter. All at the same time as some colleges didn't have enough money for to print tests to professors would print them double sides, with a smaller font.
And then they had the nerve to call me asking for money after I graduated. After talking to me once, I made sure they won't call me again. And they haven't.
No kidding. My university in the early 2000's started jacking up tuition every year by crazy amounts. And at the same time started building boutique cafes, little gazebos, parks, a new sports center with a large inside heated pool and a lazy river snaking its away around its perimeter. All at the same time as some colleges didn't have enough money for to print tests to professors would print them double sides, with a smaller font.
And then they had the nerve to call me asking for money after I graduated. After talking to me once, I made sure they won't call me again. And they haven't.
So you were a jerk to a volunteer or student calling you to ask for a donation. Kudos.
In all seriousness, I think most college administrators take their job seriously, and on the whole are not going to raise tuition $10k/year so they can add a gazebo or a river to campus. I think it's just an unintended consequence of not being forced to react to market stimulus. In a free market, a college that raised its tuition had better be able to provide more value and/or subsist on fewer students. Unfortunately with the easy availability of loans and grants, all a higher tuition means is more cash in the college's coffers and a more expensive promissory note for a 17-year-old who doesn't understand it.
In all seriousness, I think most college administrators take their job seriously, and on the whole are not going to raise tuition $10k/year so they can add a gazebo or a river to campus. I think it's just an unintended consequence of not being forced to react to market stimulus. In a free market, a college that raised its tuition had better be able to provide more value and/or subsist on fewer students. Unfortunately with the easy availability of loans and grants, all a higher tuition means is more cash in the college's coffers and a more expensive promissory note for a 17-year-old who doesn't understand it.
What are you talking about? That free market is why colleges "Club-Med" their facilities. It's what the high schoolers (and importantly, their parents) see when they're touring the school, deciding who to sign a decade of future earnings to.
Who owns the student loans of Americans? It's not the free market.
It's not the idealized free market that libertarians jack off to, but it is definitely a market.
> So you were a jerk to a volunteer or student calling you to ask for a donation. Kudos.
Thanks for Kudos, I am quite proud of saving time and hasle in the future. But why did you asume I was a jerk?
Thanks for Kudos, I am quite proud of saving time and hasle in the future. But why did you asume I was a jerk?
This is a predictable response to the nature of the product (education), the nature of the market (mostly clueless teenagers), and the uncertainty within that market of the eventual value of the product (chances of getting a job, how much it will pay, what-am-I-going-to-do-with-my-life, etc).
Colleges know that the target market of teenagers cannot come to a reasonable and calculated evaluation of the market value of the degree they are selling, so they bundle the product with anything and everything that makes prospective students and their parents feel more comfortable. Most Americans want their children to go to college, and most American teenagers have a vague understanding that it's something they should do, but there are too many unknowns for the target demographic to have any confidence in their investment, so those universities which succeed in alleviating the most fears and doubts have a competitive advantage.
This dynamic is a historical anomaly. Education has historically been trade-based, and later, a luxury of the rich who could afford to study less practical (but still important) matters. The former had a very predictable ROI that could be evaluated reasonably, and the market for the latter type of education wasn't typically concerned too much with the financial ROI of their investment, but with other types of value derived from it.
This is the fundamental problem of industrialized education, both state-controlled and private. A complete return to a trade-based system of education is impractical for many reasons, though it may help greatly in some smaller schools and regions, typically those with a dominant and stable large employer or two. On the other hand, most universities would collapse if education once again became the luxury of the elite.
MOOCs are not the answer either, at least not until the certifications they provide are widely accepted as predictable indicators of a good employee (and presently they are not). They may be a very attractive option for "continuing education" types of learning that the article references, however.
Colleges know that the target market of teenagers cannot come to a reasonable and calculated evaluation of the market value of the degree they are selling, so they bundle the product with anything and everything that makes prospective students and their parents feel more comfortable. Most Americans want their children to go to college, and most American teenagers have a vague understanding that it's something they should do, but there are too many unknowns for the target demographic to have any confidence in their investment, so those universities which succeed in alleviating the most fears and doubts have a competitive advantage.
This dynamic is a historical anomaly. Education has historically been trade-based, and later, a luxury of the rich who could afford to study less practical (but still important) matters. The former had a very predictable ROI that could be evaluated reasonably, and the market for the latter type of education wasn't typically concerned too much with the financial ROI of their investment, but with other types of value derived from it.
This is the fundamental problem of industrialized education, both state-controlled and private. A complete return to a trade-based system of education is impractical for many reasons, though it may help greatly in some smaller schools and regions, typically those with a dominant and stable large employer or two. On the other hand, most universities would collapse if education once again became the luxury of the elite.
MOOCs are not the answer either, at least not until the certifications they provide are widely accepted as predictable indicators of a good employee (and presently they are not). They may be a very attractive option for "continuing education" types of learning that the article references, however.
"First to market" applies as much to education as to business. The payoffs for finishing education sooner rather than later are enormous.
A student may benefit from being more mature if they delay college or graduation. But it's unlikely that benefit exceeds the compounding value of finishing the same amount of school two years earlier.
In other words, I strongly disagree with the premise that teenagers should delay college, for the same reason we strongly discourage people to delay saving for retirement.
Investment compounds. So it's confounding he accuses people of making a poor "major investment decision" while advocating a delay in investment. The answer whether to delay or start school unprepared is a math-intensive one, and is likely different for every student. But if you believe the majority of 18 year olds are prepared to continue school immediately for another four years, it seems reasonable to advise them to go to college immediately.
Does maturity compound? I don't know. Education definitely does.
> ...Greek systems that appeal to many affluent families but also incubate cultures of dangerous play... Rethinking the expectation that applicants to selective colleges be fresh out of high school would go far in reducing risk for young people while better protecting everyone’s college investment.
Reducing what risk? Of sexual assault and alcoholism?
I don't know if being young has anything to do with being a violently misogynist psychopath. Maybe being a victim of one does.
But the rest of the world tracks teenagers into either conscription or education at 18 too. There's less of a fraternity culture at Tsinghua for sure. I don't know if there's less sexual assault or substance abuse. Even if there were, we'd sooner indict fraternities than people being young, wouldn't we?
A student may benefit from being more mature if they delay college or graduation. But it's unlikely that benefit exceeds the compounding value of finishing the same amount of school two years earlier.
In other words, I strongly disagree with the premise that teenagers should delay college, for the same reason we strongly discourage people to delay saving for retirement.
Investment compounds. So it's confounding he accuses people of making a poor "major investment decision" while advocating a delay in investment. The answer whether to delay or start school unprepared is a math-intensive one, and is likely different for every student. But if you believe the majority of 18 year olds are prepared to continue school immediately for another four years, it seems reasonable to advise them to go to college immediately.
Does maturity compound? I don't know. Education definitely does.
> ...Greek systems that appeal to many affluent families but also incubate cultures of dangerous play... Rethinking the expectation that applicants to selective colleges be fresh out of high school would go far in reducing risk for young people while better protecting everyone’s college investment.
Reducing what risk? Of sexual assault and alcoholism?
I don't know if being young has anything to do with being a violently misogynist psychopath. Maybe being a victim of one does.
But the rest of the world tracks teenagers into either conscription or education at 18 too. There's less of a fraternity culture at Tsinghua for sure. I don't know if there's less sexual assault or substance abuse. Even if there were, we'd sooner indict fraternities than people being young, wouldn't we?
The fundamental flaw in your comment is the assumption that education is an investment that compounds in value. That's not the case for a large percentage of the young people who go to college today. Many will exit with weak earnings prospects and crippling debt that will compound.
Weak earnings prospects? Unemployment among people with a bachelors degree was under 4% last year. It was over 7% for people without one. http://www.businessinsider.com/college-vs-no-college-unemplo...
Edit: Obama's pay-as-you-earn program puts an upper limit on how harsh the debt load can get.
Edit: Obama's pay-as-you-earn program puts an upper limit on how harsh the debt load can get.
You seem to be confusing employment and earnings. Just because you're employed doesn't mean that your earnings prospects are good. Many college graduates are employed but underemployed, and many others have low-paying jobs that don't even require a college education.
As for pay-as-you-earn, which I believe requires a high debt-to-income ratio (a red flag to begin with), you need to do the actual math. Even with forgiveness, many pay-as-you go borrowers will pay more over the life of their loan.
Your comment about "making sure the monthly amount is doable is really important" is how people who live beyond their means justify purchasing things they can't really afford. This mentality is why we have 72+ month auto loans.
If you purchase a college education using debt and it does not produce monthly income that comfortably enables you to repay said debt within a reasonable amount of time, just how good is the "investment" you're making? Five figures of debt (the national average) should not take two decades to pay off; many people pay off hundreds of thousands of dollars of mortgage debt in 15 years.
The fact that relatively small amounts of debt so frequently become crippling tells you everything you need to know about how college is working out for lots of young people who don't know how to do basic math and are being mislead by adults who lack financial literacy themselves.
As for pay-as-you-earn, which I believe requires a high debt-to-income ratio (a red flag to begin with), you need to do the actual math. Even with forgiveness, many pay-as-you go borrowers will pay more over the life of their loan.
Your comment about "making sure the monthly amount is doable is really important" is how people who live beyond their means justify purchasing things they can't really afford. This mentality is why we have 72+ month auto loans.
If you purchase a college education using debt and it does not produce monthly income that comfortably enables you to repay said debt within a reasonable amount of time, just how good is the "investment" you're making? Five figures of debt (the national average) should not take two decades to pay off; many people pay off hundreds of thousands of dollars of mortgage debt in 15 years.
The fact that relatively small amounts of debt so frequently become crippling tells you everything you need to know about how college is working out for lots of young people who don't know how to do basic math and are being mislead by adults who lack financial literacy themselves.
My point about employment is that if you're not employed, you have no earnings. Not everyone who goes to college should take the pay-as-you-earn route, but it does put a ceiling on the total amount a person can owe after college, which is a darn sight better than the situation before where that number was effectively unbounded.
As for your other points, going to college is still generally profitable. http://www.npr.org/2014/02/11/275297408/going-to-college-may...
As for your other points, going to college is still generally profitable. http://www.npr.org/2014/02/11/275297408/going-to-college-may...
> As for your other points, going to college is still generally profitable.
Per the article you provided, "Those with a college degree now make $17,500 more per year than those without." I don't doubt that this is accurate. But here's the problem: not thinking through your decisions and banking on the assumption that you'll have an average outcome based on statistics is a great way to mess up your life.
There are plenty of people in tech who don't have four-year degrees who make multiples more than the median wage of college graduates of a similar age. And lest you resort to the "tech is an exception" argument, there are plenty of professions, from sales to construction to plumbing, in which you can easily find folks without four-year degrees making very good money.
In today's economy, anyone going to college without purpose and a plan expecting to earn $17,500 more per year "because statistics" is at risk of experiencing a rude awakening, particularly when debt is used to finance an education that will offer a piece of paper and little in the way of practical skills.
Per the article you provided, "Those with a college degree now make $17,500 more per year than those without." I don't doubt that this is accurate. But here's the problem: not thinking through your decisions and banking on the assumption that you'll have an average outcome based on statistics is a great way to mess up your life.
There are plenty of people in tech who don't have four-year degrees who make multiples more than the median wage of college graduates of a similar age. And lest you resort to the "tech is an exception" argument, there are plenty of professions, from sales to construction to plumbing, in which you can easily find folks without four-year degrees making very good money.
In today's economy, anyone going to college without purpose and a plan expecting to earn $17,500 more per year "because statistics" is at risk of experiencing a rude awakening, particularly when debt is used to finance an education that will offer a piece of paper and little in the way of practical skills.
Puts an upper limit on how harsh the debt load can get... on a month-to-month basis. If you're deciding affordability based on monthly obligation instead of total cost, you're doing it wrong.
The max total cost is 10% of your income for 20 years. After 20 years you just stop owing any money, you're done.
Making the monthly payment is more important than total nominal cost. That's because missing a payment adds penalties that make it much more difficult to get out of debt. So making sure the monthly amount is doable is really important.
Making the monthly payment is more important than total nominal cost. That's because missing a payment adds penalties that make it much more difficult to get out of debt. So making sure the monthly amount is doable is really important.
> making sure the monthly amount is doable is really important.
Of course it is, but you can't be so preoccupied with the monthly affordability that you forget about the total cost. (N.B. this is a trick car dealers use every day to get you to pay too much for a car)
In this sense it's not unlike the US healthcare debate where everyone was so preoccupied with how to make hospital bills affordable with government-mandated insurance that we totally forgot to ask why an aspirin costs $75 in the first place.
Of course it is, but you can't be so preoccupied with the monthly affordability that you forget about the total cost. (N.B. this is a trick car dealers use every day to get you to pay too much for a car)
In this sense it's not unlike the US healthcare debate where everyone was so preoccupied with how to make hospital bills affordable with government-mandated insurance that we totally forgot to ask why an aspirin costs $75 in the first place.
Right, but starting college a couple of years later isn't the solution to that problem. The solution is to do something other than going to college, or at least other than going to such an expensive college for such an economically valueless degree.
Does maturity compound? I don't know. Education definitely does.
College loans compound if you can't pay them. The state university I attended has a 6-year graduation rate of 65%. The graduation rate is the same for students who took out loans. So, probably about a fifth of students end up in debt with no degree. I personally wish I had waited a year or two before starting college because I think I would have performed better.
But it's unlikely that benefit exceeds the compounding value of finishing the same amount of school two years earlier.
Best I can tell, all that compounding value gets you one thing: more money in retirement. Therein lies my objection; letting your retirement dictate your first 65 years of life seems like folly.
Best I can tell, all that compounding value gets you one thing: more money in retirement. Therein lies my objection; letting your retirement dictate your first 65 years of life seems like folly.
It makes perfect sense to me. Choose the retirement you want based on the early life you want. IOW, choose your desired outcome based on the type of effort you want to put in up front.
Your retirement only "dictates" inasmuch as you've decided that your retirement should be one way or the other.
Your retirement only "dictates" inasmuch as you've decided that your retirement should be one way or the other.
I'm going to retire when I'm dead.
To quote Thoreau:
"This spending of the best part of one's life earning money in order to enjoy a questionable liberty during the least valuable part of it reminds me of the Englishman who went to India to make a fortune first, in order that he might return to England and live the life of a poet. He should have gone up garret at once."
"This spending of the best part of one's life earning money in order to enjoy a questionable liberty during the least valuable part of it reminds me of the Englishman who went to India to make a fortune first, in order that he might return to England and live the life of a poet. He should have gone up garret at once."
Teenagers and young adults are coveted by universities because they are old enough for their parents to let them do their own thing, but young enough that they are OK with taking on tens of thousands of dollars of debt for a questionable outcome.
That and they would feel bad to ask the mother of a 40 year old to liquefy her assets to pay for her son's overpriced degree.
Yes, remote, asynchronous learning is just the ticket for people who won't live close to campus and fight over seats for classes held at inconvenient hours.
While some fraternities are unruly, I don't see how it affects people who just go to class, study in the library, and live off campus. Is it common that older students get stuck living in frats or dorms? Or older students just can't resist the draw to party?
While some fraternities are unruly, I don't see how it affects people who just go to class, study in the library, and live off campus. Is it common that older students get stuck living in frats or dorms? Or older students just can't resist the draw to party?
One comment and one book plug.
Apart from the aspects of privilege, acts of drunkenness, and social schmoozing, I think what is special about the "college years" is these are some of the rare moments where young people have a chance to live relatively worry free: no worries about one's mission in life, no worries about financial subsistence (for the privileged students, not the ones holding two part-time jobs in parallel), and relatively less social anxiety (when you're young, everyone likes you).
IMHO, it is only within such prolonged worry-free moments that people can learn vast amounts of science and go on to make scientific discoveries. As adults, it is much more difficult to learn at this pace---we pick up experience and can better plan our learning, but we rarely have vast amounts of time to dedicate to learning.
Why don't employers let their employees go on sabbaticals? Imagine you can work for four years receiving 80% of your pay and then you earn a year of your free time to travel and study full-time.
Ah and the plug is about my math & physics textbook for adults, which manages to reproduce the first-year of college experience (calculus and mechanics) in a very affordable manner. Available on lulu: http://www.lulu.com/shop/noBSguide/product-21899015.html (use coupon code DGY5 for 30% off, via lulu.com/home)
Apart from the aspects of privilege, acts of drunkenness, and social schmoozing, I think what is special about the "college years" is these are some of the rare moments where young people have a chance to live relatively worry free: no worries about one's mission in life, no worries about financial subsistence (for the privileged students, not the ones holding two part-time jobs in parallel), and relatively less social anxiety (when you're young, everyone likes you).
IMHO, it is only within such prolonged worry-free moments that people can learn vast amounts of science and go on to make scientific discoveries. As adults, it is much more difficult to learn at this pace---we pick up experience and can better plan our learning, but we rarely have vast amounts of time to dedicate to learning.
Why don't employers let their employees go on sabbaticals? Imagine you can work for four years receiving 80% of your pay and then you earn a year of your free time to travel and study full-time.
Ah and the plug is about my math & physics textbook for adults, which manages to reproduce the first-year of college experience (calculus and mechanics) in a very affordable manner. Available on lulu: http://www.lulu.com/shop/noBSguide/product-21899015.html (use coupon code DGY5 for 30% off, via lulu.com/home)
This is a big driver for the success of the bootcamp phenomenon. I'm a cofounder at one of the schools, and I can say that if college catered to career switchers, I would not have an easy market to serve.
"At Stanford, where I teach, an idea still in the concept phase developed by a student-led team in the university’s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design calls for the replacement of four consecutive college years in young adulthood with multiple residencies distributed over a lifetime."
Multiple residency? Is the author out of their minds? People cannot even afford residency for a 4 year university, now they want people to pay for high school residency?
Multiple residency? Is the author out of their minds? People cannot even afford residency for a 4 year university, now they want people to pay for high school residency?
Cynicism alert. The purpose of widespread college education is socioeconomic. People simply wouldn't throw so much money and time after this game (starting, in some places, with preschool admissions, and often totaling near the half-million mark) if it weren't. The leaders of our society don't value culture or education that much; they do value tradition, pedigree, and position. Our colleges actually do a pretty good job of educating people who want to learn, but that's a tertiary purpose to the socioeconomic one that justifies tuitions at $50,000 per year instead of, say, $5,000.
The so-called party pathway through college is an all-encompassing lifestyle characterized by virtually nonstop socializing, often on the male-controlled turf of fraternity houses. Substance abuse and sexual assault are common consequences.
College is about protecting the young from an unforgiving society, by handling indiscretions (e.g. substance abuse) with the kid gloves, and protecting their early careers by giving them something close to the best possible work experience they can have at a given age.
A 30-year-old has fits and starts in his career and at least one job that took a painful. A 22-year-old coming out of college has an almost unblemished record. A mediocre GPA can be interpreted as evidence of being social, and while English majors might not place as well as CS majors, literature provides much more interesting conversation than a terminal middle-management position. That is what college achieves. It gets you 4 years into adulthood with a very low risk of having to explain yourself.
Also, we gripe about ageism afflicting the late-career not-that-old, but there's also a strong ageism directed at young adult men. The truth about most 17- to 23-year-old males... is that society doesn't like 'em too much. The social hierarchy is high-status men > high-status women > low-status women > low-status men. (That's part of why gender debates around social justice are so complicated; women get screwed on upside and men get screwed on downside.) Additionally, age and social status are correlated in men, generally upward until old age. Except for wealthy heirs, young men are seen as garbage until they prove themselves. (I'm not saying that this is right; it's clearly not.) College isn't just about making teenage men acceptable for society, but also protecting them during a time in which many people are predisposed to hate them, thinking of them as horny, reckless, socially inept monsters.
Traditionally, college was to protect young men from the horrors that society inflicts upon men of low status, the tricks and lies that throw them by the millions into wars that benefit the rich, and general career sand traps they'd fall into (just on account of being young and not fully formed yet) if they had to fend for themselves... and, also, to protect young women from men below their socioeconomic milieu. (The current clusterfuck surrounding college rape-- it turns out that ivory-tower institutions are completely out of their depth when dealing with a felony that is one of the worst things that one can do to another person-- illustrates, of course, that men of high socioeconomic status can be dangerous, too.) Socioeconomic class is about how long you can delay adulthood and the lack of a safety net and the period of life in which you're held accountable for your choices.
Widespread college also serves society by taking a large number of promising but at-the-time economically useless people off the job market. It protects the students, and it protects the market from their wage depression, and it protects society from a deluge of unemployed people who are (based on socioeconomic status and academic performance) presumed to be dangerous and intelligent enough to be threatening (in a revolutionary sense, i.e. "don't overthrow the government; party on your parent's dime for 4 years").
You're not going to see 30-year-olds in college because, in truth, they're too economically useful (whether they're paid well is another matter) and because they're not deemed to need protection at that age (rather, the young are judged to need protection from them). Also, it doesn't really work. College sells itself as the "get to age 22 without having to explain yourself" option, which is great because most of us would have to explain ourselves if we called our own shots from 18-22... but if you're 30 and just completed your BA, you'll still be asked to explain yourself, defeating much of the purpose.
Unrelenting demand for better-educated workers
Man, I wish. See, if there were "unrelenting demand", then software engineers would have no problem getting themselves sent back to school on full salary for part-time work. You'd see software engineers doing PhDs on their employees' dime as a common phenomenon, rather than a freak rarity. I'm not saying that we should have such a perk and we're certainly not owed or entitled to it, but it's what we'd have if demand were actually so high.
At the upper levels of education, demand is actually pretty low, as illustrated by the academic job market. In fact, the rarity of high-quality work experience is often used as leverage against top talent: they're typically specialized to such a point that few companies are doing what they're good at, and they have to take a cut (in pay or conditions) relative to what they're actually worth in order to protect the specialty.
The so-called party pathway through college is an all-encompassing lifestyle characterized by virtually nonstop socializing, often on the male-controlled turf of fraternity houses. Substance abuse and sexual assault are common consequences.
College is about protecting the young from an unforgiving society, by handling indiscretions (e.g. substance abuse) with the kid gloves, and protecting their early careers by giving them something close to the best possible work experience they can have at a given age.
A 30-year-old has fits and starts in his career and at least one job that took a painful. A 22-year-old coming out of college has an almost unblemished record. A mediocre GPA can be interpreted as evidence of being social, and while English majors might not place as well as CS majors, literature provides much more interesting conversation than a terminal middle-management position. That is what college achieves. It gets you 4 years into adulthood with a very low risk of having to explain yourself.
Also, we gripe about ageism afflicting the late-career not-that-old, but there's also a strong ageism directed at young adult men. The truth about most 17- to 23-year-old males... is that society doesn't like 'em too much. The social hierarchy is high-status men > high-status women > low-status women > low-status men. (That's part of why gender debates around social justice are so complicated; women get screwed on upside and men get screwed on downside.) Additionally, age and social status are correlated in men, generally upward until old age. Except for wealthy heirs, young men are seen as garbage until they prove themselves. (I'm not saying that this is right; it's clearly not.) College isn't just about making teenage men acceptable for society, but also protecting them during a time in which many people are predisposed to hate them, thinking of them as horny, reckless, socially inept monsters.
Traditionally, college was to protect young men from the horrors that society inflicts upon men of low status, the tricks and lies that throw them by the millions into wars that benefit the rich, and general career sand traps they'd fall into (just on account of being young and not fully formed yet) if they had to fend for themselves... and, also, to protect young women from men below their socioeconomic milieu. (The current clusterfuck surrounding college rape-- it turns out that ivory-tower institutions are completely out of their depth when dealing with a felony that is one of the worst things that one can do to another person-- illustrates, of course, that men of high socioeconomic status can be dangerous, too.) Socioeconomic class is about how long you can delay adulthood and the lack of a safety net and the period of life in which you're held accountable for your choices.
Widespread college also serves society by taking a large number of promising but at-the-time economically useless people off the job market. It protects the students, and it protects the market from their wage depression, and it protects society from a deluge of unemployed people who are (based on socioeconomic status and academic performance) presumed to be dangerous and intelligent enough to be threatening (in a revolutionary sense, i.e. "don't overthrow the government; party on your parent's dime for 4 years").
You're not going to see 30-year-olds in college because, in truth, they're too economically useful (whether they're paid well is another matter) and because they're not deemed to need protection at that age (rather, the young are judged to need protection from them). Also, it doesn't really work. College sells itself as the "get to age 22 without having to explain yourself" option, which is great because most of us would have to explain ourselves if we called our own shots from 18-22... but if you're 30 and just completed your BA, you'll still be asked to explain yourself, defeating much of the purpose.
Unrelenting demand for better-educated workers
Man, I wish. See, if there were "unrelenting demand", then software engineers would have no problem getting themselves sent back to school on full salary for part-time work. You'd see software engineers doing PhDs on their employees' dime as a common phenomenon, rather than a freak rarity. I'm not saying that we should have such a perk and we're certainly not owed or entitled to it, but it's what we'd have if demand were actually so high.
At the upper levels of education, demand is actually pretty low, as illustrated by the academic job market. In fact, the rarity of high-quality work experience is often used as leverage against top talent: they're typically specialized to such a point that few companies are doing what they're good at, and they have to take a cut (in pay or conditions) relative to what they're actually worth in order to protect the specialty.
Actually, the real explanation is much, much simpler: back in the postwar era, nigh-universal university education was sold to the new middle classes as triply a way to solidify their economic position, a way to gain both status and acculturation relative to the upper classes, and a way to avoid being thrown into wars.
You over-systemize things. When congress subsidizes higher education, no one debates it primarily as needed to prevent horny male youth from revolution, but we are supposed to assume that is the subtext, and is the dominating reason really driving things? Which The Office episode is this from :-/?
I don't find it completely implausible that some people with influence in the lawmaking process (whether it be congresspeople, their advisors, or interest groups) have the historical knowledge and analytical ability to develop a perspective like Michael's.
Why should one assume that the actual reasons behind a policy are the same as the stated ones?
Even more, if these facts about the effects of the policy are true and important, then whether or not they comprise a large part of why anyone wants or says they want the policy isn't even that relevant.
Why should one assume that the actual reasons behind a policy are the same as the stated ones?
Even more, if these facts about the effects of the policy are true and important, then whether or not they comprise a large part of why anyone wants or says they want the policy isn't even that relevant.
You shouldn't assume that the actual reasons behind a policy are the same as the stated ones.
You also shouldn't assume that the reasons that some random guy on the Internet gives for the policy are the real ones.
This is the big problem with believing in conspiracy theories: yes, you are being lied to by people in power. You are also being lied to by people not in power. They are being lied to by the people whose actions they use to build the theories that they espouse to everyone else.
Eventually, you realize that the only course of action that keeps you sane is to realize that society is built upon lies and misdirection, and it doesn't matter. We make the best inferences we can with the data we have available to us. And if we're wrong - well, so is everybody else, so the goal is just to be a bit less wrong than everyone else. Usually you get there by discounting everyone else's analyses and listening to their data and personal experiences only.
You also shouldn't assume that the reasons that some random guy on the Internet gives for the policy are the real ones.
This is the big problem with believing in conspiracy theories: yes, you are being lied to by people in power. You are also being lied to by people not in power. They are being lied to by the people whose actions they use to build the theories that they espouse to everyone else.
Eventually, you realize that the only course of action that keeps you sane is to realize that society is built upon lies and misdirection, and it doesn't matter. We make the best inferences we can with the data we have available to us. And if we're wrong - well, so is everybody else, so the goal is just to be a bit less wrong than everyone else. Usually you get there by discounting everyone else's analyses and listening to their data and personal experiences only.
Exactly, many of the conclusions drawn sound far more 'Conspiratorial' rather than insightful. College is in no way an invention (especially considering Universities are an idea from the 11th century) to keep young, hot-blooded, and useless men at bay for a few years.
Although, from personal experience the social hierarchy is very true and is simply a result from an older-male dominated world/society. Young men and (sometimes) older women are potential competition, and young women are potential sex objects. Basic biology at play.
EDIT: But I would like to say that college is nearly useless, because the world economy is slowly collapsing in on itself (overall trend since the 70s) and sending more kids to college is no fix to that. In fact it may only make things worse (depending on how college systems work).
Although, from personal experience the social hierarchy is very true and is simply a result from an older-male dominated world/society. Young men and (sometimes) older women are potential competition, and young women are potential sex objects. Basic biology at play.
EDIT: But I would like to say that college is nearly useless, because the world economy is slowly collapsing in on itself (overall trend since the 70s) and sending more kids to college is no fix to that. In fact it may only make things worse (depending on how college systems work).
"College is about protecting the young from an unforgiving society...Traditionally, college was to protect young men from the horrors that society inflicts upon men of low status,... It protects the students, and it protects the market from their wage depression, and it protects society from a deluge of unemployed people..."
I am not aware of any evidence that these motivations were the conscious intent behind the creation of the post-World War II university complex (except to the extent that avoiding mass post-war unemployment was a motivation for the GI bill in particular). Nor does it seem like it was the subconscious or institutional intent either. Do you have any evidence for these statements?
In my understanding, the post-war college system was created because the nation's leadership believed in the goals of training people for the workforce and the Utopian goal of educating every person as a philosophe. The people in charge of the system at the time were academics themselves, who were true believers. As the university industry grew, there is a big incentive to cater to the whims of the students in order to attract students, so universities have made themselves a very pleasant and sheltered playground for 18-22 year olds.
The subconcious, adaptive motivation for the creation of the university system, is that the idea of a university education is a self-replicating adaptive fiction. Whether or not the education is useful, the more people who have the education, the more people who are indoctrinated to believe that said education is useful, so the more the belief replicates.
I am not aware of any evidence that these motivations were the conscious intent behind the creation of the post-World War II university complex (except to the extent that avoiding mass post-war unemployment was a motivation for the GI bill in particular). Nor does it seem like it was the subconscious or institutional intent either. Do you have any evidence for these statements?
In my understanding, the post-war college system was created because the nation's leadership believed in the goals of training people for the workforce and the Utopian goal of educating every person as a philosophe. The people in charge of the system at the time were academics themselves, who were true believers. As the university industry grew, there is a big incentive to cater to the whims of the students in order to attract students, so universities have made themselves a very pleasant and sheltered playground for 18-22 year olds.
The subconcious, adaptive motivation for the creation of the university system, is that the idea of a university education is a self-replicating adaptive fiction. Whether or not the education is useful, the more people who have the education, the more people who are indoctrinated to believe that said education is useful, so the more the belief replicates.
> Substance abuse and sexual assault are common consequences.
I could be very wrong here. I'd like to hear from HN'ers in other countries to either support or correct my opinion.
I think this idea of morally derailing in college is uniquely American. Do other countries have the equivalent of Spring Break and the idea of leaving your family to go to college and choose (not all, some) to engage in drugs, sex and levels of depravity? Or is college/university in other cultures a serious learning environment?
I could be very wrong here. I'd like to hear from HN'ers in other countries to either support or correct my opinion.
I think this idea of morally derailing in college is uniquely American. Do other countries have the equivalent of Spring Break and the idea of leaving your family to go to college and choose (not all, some) to engage in drugs, sex and levels of depravity? Or is college/university in other cultures a serious learning environment?
high-status men > high-status women > low-status women > low-status men.
Going to need some evidence of that. Seems like bullshit.
Going to need some evidence of that. Seems like bullshit.
Ask anyone who graduated from Harvard (undergrad), HBS, HLS, etc. about the Harvard Extension School and you'll get the eye-roll I'm talking about. I think in cases like this it's less because of the adult part but more because of the payola part -- anyone can sign up for HES classes provided they pay.
What I think is potentially interesting, and frankly am surprised isn't offered yet (or at least not widely), is the idea of continuing one's education into adulthood through the same university.
My personal motivation: When I was 19 and a sophomore picking a major, I chose what interested me at the time - business & psychology. I loved what I learned and am grateful for my college education.
But here I am 18 years later and my brain and desires have changed. I'm rabidly excited about programming and CS topics, and have done a pretty decent job of teaching myself through various online resources over the past few years.
My alma mater should capitalize on this -- they should offer a "supplemental degree" program where I can give them money, take classes (remotely or on campus), do the work, take the tests, and get a CS major supplement to my previous undergrad degree. It would maintain the full authority of the university and be a full bachelor's degree, just completed almost 2 decades after the first bit :)
I can't imagine I'm alone in wanting this sort of thing...