Community College is immensely useful for those who wish to apply the benefits they give. Hence, the variability of anecdotal evidence. It's hard to take anything as a collective and just label it terrible or not terrible. The truth is always more complicated than that.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I went to a liberal arts college and picked up a shiny English degree and 101 classes can be hit or miss.
I did love the lacross guy who showed up Junior year in the department thinking he was going to be a lawyer and then proceeded to be one of the worst speakers/writers I've ever met.
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
This is pretty consistent which how Spool sees the public system as well. A view that it exist solely for the purpose of providing meaningless credentials.
I wouldn't say it's that black and white. To be clear, I believe education is super important as a goal in and of itself, but I also believe that getting an education is something you should try to do as much of as possible while buying credentials from a university. I believe it's important to recognize that the two are interrelated but ultimately distinct efforts, and that the credentials are what you're buying while the education is a secondary goal.
I don't believe all university credentials are meaningless, but I do believe the value is quickly superseded by work experience and the degree rarely provides full value for money on the job market. At the same time, I definitely recognize the intrinsic value of education both personally and as a tool to elevate society. Bringing some clarity and sanity to university pricing could go a long way toward harmonizing these conflicts.
As you point out, the acquiring of the credential is what matters. By unlinking them from the education they represent, you are calling them fairly meaningless since their purpose is to state that the bearer has received an education in that field.
I don't think that's been universally true for twenty or thirty years at least. Probably much moreso in the sciences, but in the humanities? I have a degree in English lit. It is a rare soul who can translate that knowledge into any kind of informed judgment about what I've learned in the field, or what it's worth in terms of compensation or ability. I'm not saying that credentials are meaningless, but I am saying that their meaning often bears no relationship to the education a graduate may or may not have received.
Why is an English degree from Harvard better than one from Baylor? I doubt anyone here could tell either of us, but I'd also bet that a poll of opinions on which one is better will show a result of 100% Harvard. That's a great indication that the credentials have meaning, but the meaning isn't related to the education.
Also: what do you call a guy who graduates bottom of his class in med school?
"Doctor".
0
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
self-teaching programming has made me a little cynical about 100 level courses. it's hard for me to imagine that someone is suited for a field if they can't intuit their way through an intro level course, looking over the assorted syllabi for my first semester.
Just wait, in a couple years you'll be shocked at the ineptitude of some of your peers.
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
That describes the traditional university system just as well. I'd like to see all post-secondary education held to the same standards, and I'd be pretty happy to see a couple of universities sued into oblivion as well.
What portions or departments are you talking about? I'm curious.
It varies from institution to institution but heck, you even see blatant misrepresentation in graduate-level law programs. Practically every university will charge you more for your freshman core requirements than an associated community college, and they'll accept the CC's credits. When you agree that a far cheaper set of coursework is 100% equivalent to your more expensive offering, yet you still go to great lengths to convince students you're completely justified charging more and they believe you, that is some A-level fleecing.
If the only thing they were doing is selling you credits this might be the case
It isn't
Community colleges, are, by and large, terrible
They do try, and there are exceptions (almost always in the form of specific professors or departments) but there is a gulf between even the worst state schools and CCs in quality of education, even and perhaps especially at the survey level
What does it matter, if you're able to tackle the later coursework? A terrible Comp 1 class is equal to a fantastic, amazing Comp 1 class both in terms of the degree requirements to buy your credentials, and to your ability to succeed in meeting the rest of the requirements.
There's no reason Comp 1 from a university should cost you $1000 but only cost $125 at the community college.
False. Location is going to play a big role in all of this. Big Universities are either in cities, or at the center of college towns. Community colleges can exist anywhere, but usually don't require the same amount of capital to run. At the very base level, there's real estate. Then account for cost of living. Then account for having to pay people enough to attract talent.
Arguing that schools should be run more like a business is only going to escalate that problem, as market prices vary from place to place on pretty much anything.
none of that improves the quality of the education backing the credit, though...?
Even at the 100, lecture hall level there is a difference in quality of education at world class universities vs regular universities vs community colleges etc. If nothing else, the intellectual quality of your peers makes a difference in quality of discussion and higher expectation. But the quality of facility and professor even at those levels makes a difference too.
i'm saying what is wrong with a strong student going to community college- you seem to suggest that their only 'real' role is to handle kids who couldn't hack a real education
That's most of what a community college is: Its a route for post-secondary education for those who are unwilling, unable due to outside circumstance, or who have not otherwise not demonstrated an ability to succeed at a more selective universities.
That's most of what a community college is: Its a route for post-secondary education for those who are unwilling, unable due to outside circumstance, or who have not otherwise not demonstrated an ability to succeed at a more selective universities.
This is the most classist and inaccurate assessment of post-secondary education I have heard in a while. I am actually taken aback a little here. What about returning students, veterans, job retrainers, older people pursuing a second degree, part time students, or late start students?
Even at the 100, lecture hall level there is a difference in quality of education at world class universities vs regular universities vs community colleges etc. If nothing else, the intellectual quality of your peers makes a difference in quality of discussion and higher expectation. But the quality of facility and professor even at those levels makes a difference too.
i'm saying what is wrong with a strong student going to community college- you seem to suggest that their only 'real' role is to handle kids who couldn't hack a real education
That's most of what a community college is: Its a route for post-secondary education for those who are unwilling, unable due to outside circumstance, or who have not otherwise not demonstrated an ability to succeed at a more selective universities.
i'm pretty sure that 'it's many, many, many thousands of dollars cheaper' has something to do with it, too. financial position and lifestyle can hamstring a student as much or more than inability or apathy.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
This is pretty consistent which how Spool sees the public system as well. A view that it exist solely for the purpose of providing meaningless credentials.
I wouldn't say it's that black and white. To be clear, I believe education is super important as a goal in and of itself, but I also believe that getting an education is something you should try to do as much of as possible while buying credentials from a university. I believe it's important to recognize that the two are interrelated but ultimately distinct efforts, and that the credentials are what you're buying while the education is a secondary goal.
I don't believe all university credentials are meaningless, but I do believe the value is quickly superseded by work experience and the degree rarely provides full value for money on the job market. At the same time, I definitely recognize the intrinsic value of education both personally and as a tool to elevate society. Bringing some clarity and sanity to university pricing could go a long way toward harmonizing these conflicts.
As you point out, the acquiring of the credential is what matters. By unlinking them from the education they represent, you are calling them fairly meaningless since their purpose is to state that the bearer has received an education in that field.
I don't think that's been universally true for twenty or thirty years at least. Probably much moreso in the sciences, but in the humanities? I have a degree in English lit. It is a rare soul who can translate that knowledge into any kind of informed judgment about what I've learned in the field, or what it's worth in terms of compensation or ability. I'm not saying that credentials are meaningless, but I am saying that their meaning often bears no relationship to the education a graduate may or may not have received.
Why is an English degree from Harvard better than one from Baylor? I doubt anyone here could tell either of us, but I'd also bet that a poll of opinions on which one is better will show a result of 100% Harvard. That's a great indication that the credentials have meaning, but the meaning isn't related to the education.
Also: what do you call a guy who graduates bottom of his class in med school?
"Doctor".
It should be noted that bottom of the class in med school is probably a B average. In graduate school of any time, you get more than one or two Cs and you're out. Claiming that being the bottom of the class in med school means you're an idiot that is somehow still a doctor is like claiming that the least intelligent Nobel Prize laureate in physics is an idiot.
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
That describes the traditional university system just as well. I'd like to see all post-secondary education held to the same standards, and I'd be pretty happy to see a couple of universities sued into oblivion as well.
What portions or departments are you talking about? I'm curious.
It varies from institution to institution but heck, you even see blatant misrepresentation in graduate-level law programs. Practically every university will charge you more for your freshman core requirements than an associated community college, and they'll accept the CC's credits. When you agree that a far cheaper set of coursework is 100% equivalent to your more expensive offering, yet you still go to great lengths to convince students you're completely justified charging more and they believe you, that is some A-level fleecing.
If the only thing they were doing is selling you credits this might be the case
It isn't
Community colleges, are, by and large, terrible
They do try, and there are exceptions (almost always in the form of specific professors or departments) but there is a gulf between even the worst state schools and CCs in quality of education, even and perhaps especially at the survey level
What does it matter, if you're able to tackle the later coursework? A terrible Comp 1 class is equal to a fantastic, amazing Comp 1 class both in terms of the degree requirements to buy your credentials, and to your ability to succeed in meeting the rest of the requirements.
There's no reason Comp 1 from a university should cost you $1000 but only cost $125 at the community college.
False. Location is going to play a big role in all of this. Big Universities are either in cities, or at the center of college towns. Community colleges can exist anywhere, but usually don't require the same amount of capital to run. At the very base level, there's real estate. Then account for cost of living. Then account for having to pay people enough to attract talent.
Arguing that schools should be run more like a business is only going to escalate that problem, as market prices vary from place to place on pretty much anything.
Let's be more concrete then. University of Texas at Austin's freshman year costs ~$9000 in state not counting books and housing. The university owns the land through a grant enshrined in the Texas Constitution. A freshman taking a standard load is paying ~$1800 per course, about $600/credit hour. Let's be super generous and put 50% of that toward non-salary expenses of running the college... so we're talking ~$900 for Freshman Composition 101.
Austin Community College is 6 blocks away from the UT Campus and offers Composition 101 for $125. Do you really think UT's offering is 700% better?
It's only "wrong" in that there exist places in which stronger education and networking can be received. Deliberately choosing a [possibly merely socially designated, possibly legitimately] inferior institution that doesn't have the best teachers, resources, facilites, networking possibilities [by god this is important], etc is not the optimum [that is, normative and tried-and-true] path to success.
Of course, this is only "wrong" if you had the ability and resources to go to a better one.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
That describes the traditional university system just as well. I'd like to see all post-secondary education held to the same standards, and I'd be pretty happy to see a couple of universities sued into oblivion as well.
What portions or departments are you talking about? I'm curious.
It varies from institution to institution but heck, you even see blatant misrepresentation in graduate-level law programs. Practically every university will charge you more for your freshman core requirements than an associated community college, and they'll accept the CC's credits. When you agree that a far cheaper set of coursework is 100% equivalent to your more expensive offering, yet you still go to great lengths to convince students you're completely justified charging more and they believe you, that is some A-level fleecing.
If the only thing they were doing is selling you credits this might be the case
It isn't
Community colleges, are, by and large, terrible
They do try, and there are exceptions (almost always in the form of specific professors or departments) but there is a gulf between even the worst state schools and CCs in quality of education, even and perhaps especially at the survey level
What does it matter, if you're able to tackle the later coursework? A terrible Comp 1 class is equal to a fantastic, amazing Comp 1 class both in terms of the degree requirements to buy your credentials, and to your ability to succeed in meeting the rest of the requirements.
There's no reason Comp 1 from a university should cost you $1000 but only cost $125 at the community college.
False. Location is going to play a big role in all of this. Big Universities are either in cities, or at the center of college towns. Community colleges can exist anywhere, but usually don't require the same amount of capital to run. At the very base level, there's real estate. Then account for cost of living. Then account for having to pay people enough to attract talent.
Arguing that schools should be run more like a business is only going to escalate that problem, as market prices vary from place to place on pretty much anything.
none of that improves the quality of the education backing the credit, though...?
Well, no, not necessarily. The point is that you can't just put a stamp on a college course and say: all Comp 101 classes are $200. There are too many factors that go into higher education to sell it like it's some supermarket commodity. You need to have a campus, digital or physical. That costs money. You need to pay people, and some of them are going to want to be compensated for having awesome credentials.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
This is pretty consistent which how Spool sees the public system as well. A view that it exist solely for the purpose of providing meaningless credentials.
I wouldn't say it's that black and white. To be clear, I believe education is super important as a goal in and of itself, but I also believe that getting an education is something you should try to do as much of as possible while buying credentials from a university. I believe it's important to recognize that the two are interrelated but ultimately distinct efforts, and that the credentials are what you're buying while the education is a secondary goal.
I don't believe all university credentials are meaningless, but I do believe the value is quickly superseded by work experience and the degree rarely provides full value for money on the job market. At the same time, I definitely recognize the intrinsic value of education both personally and as a tool to elevate society. Bringing some clarity and sanity to university pricing could go a long way toward harmonizing these conflicts.
As you point out, the acquiring of the credential is what matters. By unlinking them from the education they represent, you are calling them fairly meaningless since their purpose is to state that the bearer has received an education in that field.
I don't think that's been universally true for twenty or thirty years at least. Probably much moreso in the sciences, but in the humanities? I have a degree in English lit. It is a rare soul who can translate that knowledge into any kind of informed judgment about what I've learned in the field, or what it's worth in terms of compensation or ability. I'm not saying that credentials are meaningless, but I am saying that their meaning often bears no relationship to the education a graduate may or may not have received.
Why is an English degree from Harvard better than one from Baylor? I doubt anyone here could tell either of us, but I'd also bet that a poll of opinions on which one is better will show a result of 100% Harvard. That's a great indication that the credentials have meaning, but the meaning isn't related to the education.
Also: what do you call a guy who graduates bottom of his class in med school?
"Doctor".
It should be noted that bottom of the class in med school is probably a B average. In graduate school of any time, you get more than one or two Cs and you're out. Claiming that being the bottom of the class in med school means you're an idiot that is somehow still a doctor is like claiming that the least intelligent Nobel Prize laureate in physics is an idiot.
Harvard also will probably have better professors, since they can pay and recruit the top members of the field which means that yes, the degree is better.
There are many things we learned in our English degrees that have better pay offs. For one, the ability to properly communicate and talk about ideas puts us ahead of a large swath of even college educated people.
If you try to make it as a writer, yeah, you're probably going to be poor, but an English degree is one of the most employable liberal arts degrees there is for the sheer number of applications.
It's just a good joke for business majors to make.
AManFromEarth on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Another thing I'd like to address is the unpaid internship.
I thought we made slavery illegal?
You're not really entitled to complain if you're also railing against students earning income-relevant credentials in university
I don't know that that's necessarily accurate.
A full time unpaid intenrship is inaccessible for a student at the income level I was on when in undergrad.
well, yes. To the extent that we desire that all people should be able to access qualifications that increase their potential, most Western societies already extensively subsidize it. They call it "university". If you oppose "university" serving this function, then it just gets shoveled out onto things that aren't subsidized and aren't accessible and yet that's exactly what you're cheering on here
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I feel like my community college years were well-spent and I made a good decision by going.
I'm not done but I feel the same
and I've been to two!... also two universities.
In the end, for me, this is the most important part of education. I applaud you both and if I implied that I thought less of comm college students in general, I do apologize and believe me that wasn't my intention.
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
That describes the traditional university system just as well. I'd like to see all post-secondary education held to the same standards, and I'd be pretty happy to see a couple of universities sued into oblivion as well.
What portions or departments are you talking about? I'm curious.
It varies from institution to institution but heck, you even see blatant misrepresentation in graduate-level law programs. Practically every university will charge you more for your freshman core requirements than an associated community college, and they'll accept the CC's credits. When you agree that a far cheaper set of coursework is 100% equivalent to your more expensive offering, yet you still go to great lengths to convince students you're completely justified charging more and they believe you, that is some A-level fleecing.
If the only thing they were doing is selling you credits this might be the case
It isn't
Community colleges, are, by and large, terrible
They do try, and there are exceptions (almost always in the form of specific professors or departments) but there is a gulf between even the worst state schools and CCs in quality of education, even and perhaps especially at the survey level
What does it matter, if you're able to tackle the later coursework? A terrible Comp 1 class is equal to a fantastic, amazing Comp 1 class both in terms of the degree requirements to buy your credentials, and to your ability to succeed in meeting the rest of the requirements.
There's no reason Comp 1 from a university should cost you $1000 but only cost $125 at the community college.
False. Location is going to play a big role in all of this. Big Universities are either in cities, or at the center of college towns. Community colleges can exist anywhere, but usually don't require the same amount of capital to run. At the very base level, there's real estate. Then account for cost of living. Then account for having to pay people enough to attract talent.
Arguing that schools should be run more like a business is only going to escalate that problem, as market prices vary from place to place on pretty much anything.
none of that improves the quality of the education backing the credit, though...?
Well, no, not necessarily. The point is that you can't just put a stamp on a college course and say: all Comp 101 classes are $200. There are too many factors that go into higher education to sell it like it's some supermarket commodity. You need to have a campus, digital or physical. That costs money. You need to pay people, and some of them are going to want to be compensated for having awesome credentials.
Credentials they got from a university that offers highly-valued credentials due to the credentials of the professors? 8->
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Another thing I'd like to address is the unpaid internship.
I thought we made slavery illegal?
You're not really entitled to complain if you're also railing against students earning income-relevant credentials in university
I don't know that that's necessarily accurate.
A full time unpaid intenrship is inaccessible for a student at the income level I was on when in undergrad.
well, yes. To the extent that we desire that all people should be able to access qualifications that increase their potential, most Western societies already extensively subsidize it. They call it "university". If you oppose "university" serving this function, then it just gets shoveled out onto things that aren't subsidized and aren't accessible and yet that's exactly what you're cheering on here
I don't think you're understanding my opposition to unpaid internships...
I feel like my community college years were well-spent and I made a good decision by going.
I'm not done but I feel the same
and I've been to two!... also two universities.
In the end, for me, this is the most important part of education. I applaud you both and if I implied that I thought less of comm college students in general, I do apologize and believe me that wasn't my intention.
Its okay. I have an associates as well, and it put me 2 years ahead of the grad students I work with, because they received no lab training as undergrads.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I went to Community College and look how I turned out!
In all seriousness, I did go, and it was a good decision. It saved me a lot of money, I got my grades to better reflect my abilities, got some good references, and when I transferred to a full university, I feel like I had matured enough to handle myself.
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
That describes the traditional university system just as well. I'd like to see all post-secondary education held to the same standards, and I'd be pretty happy to see a couple of universities sued into oblivion as well.
What portions or departments are you talking about? I'm curious.
It varies from institution to institution but heck, you even see blatant misrepresentation in graduate-level law programs. Practically every university will charge you more for your freshman core requirements than an associated community college, and they'll accept the CC's credits. When you agree that a far cheaper set of coursework is 100% equivalent to your more expensive offering, yet you still go to great lengths to convince students you're completely justified charging more and they believe you, that is some A-level fleecing.
If the only thing they were doing is selling you credits this might be the case
It isn't
Community colleges, are, by and large, terrible
They do try, and there are exceptions (almost always in the form of specific professors or departments) but there is a gulf between even the worst state schools and CCs in quality of education, even and perhaps especially at the survey level
What does it matter, if you're able to tackle the later coursework? A terrible Comp 1 class is equal to a fantastic, amazing Comp 1 class both in terms of the degree requirements to buy your credentials, and to your ability to succeed in meeting the rest of the requirements.
There's no reason Comp 1 from a university should cost you $1000 but only cost $125 at the community college.
False. Location is going to play a big role in all of this. Big Universities are either in cities, or at the center of college towns. Community colleges can exist anywhere, but usually don't require the same amount of capital to run. At the very base level, there's real estate. Then account for cost of living. Then account for having to pay people enough to attract talent.
Arguing that schools should be run more like a business is only going to escalate that problem, as market prices vary from place to place on pretty much anything.
none of that improves the quality of the education backing the credit, though...?
Well, no, not necessarily. The point is that you can't just put a stamp on a college course and say: all Comp 101 classes are $200. There are too many factors that go into higher education to sell it like it's some supermarket commodity. You need to have a campus, digital or physical. That costs money. You need to pay people, and some of them are going to want to be compensated for having awesome credentials.
Credentials they got from a university that offers highly-valued credentials due to the credentials of the professors? 8->
Schools have reputations. Those reputations are going to attract talent, or people who are specialists within a field that help build that reputation.
So...
yes?
Vanguard on
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Josephson!
That was the guy. Still at large being insane in Cambridge. That's what happens when you do Nobel prize worthy research during your PhD. IT's best to steet clear of success.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
That was the guy. Still at large being insane in Cambridge. That's what happens when you do Nobel prize worthy research during your PhD. IT's best to steet clear of success.
Like, I definitely agree that academic institutions have fucked up their business model, but I see two problems with this in most of the discourse about it
One- the blame always gets thrown on the feet of administrators, and while they do make disproportionately more than educators and other employees, it seems to be accepted that most of the tuition inflation is a result of decreasing amounts of federal and public funding for universities. The university I just left saw a 40% tuition increase after a 30% decrease in state allocations to their budget.
Universities are hurting, bad, and while they may be making poor financial decisions, the solution to that isn't to cut them off of public funds, because that just makes the problem worse in the realm of tuition inflation.
What they should've done is cut their expenses by 30%, not increased tuition. I'm no economist, but I'd bet the majority of that increase will be covered in grants and loans. To me that says they saw a huge drop in revenue and instead of slashing overhead they knew they had a captive market that will buy whatever they sell so they just cranked up the price and offloaded their pain to customers who can't demand a refund if they get nothing of tangible value for their purchase.
very business-like, though, you gotta admit
I mean, if you had a captive market as a business, why wouldn't you do exactly this
Yeah, you're pretty correct there. It's unsustainable though... eventually you have somebody try to undercut your business. In this sector it's for-profit schools.
I wasn't the least bit surprised to see government begin to go after for-profit institutions for exactly the same problems traditional institutions have, with those very same institutions cheering from the sidelines.
What for-profit universities do is fleece people who have no idea how education works or should cost, for all their money. Pretty happy to see them get sued into oblivion in the next few years.
That describes the traditional university system just as well. I'd like to see all post-secondary education held to the same standards, and I'd be pretty happy to see a couple of universities sued into oblivion as well.
What portions or departments are you talking about? I'm curious.
It varies from institution to institution but heck, you even see blatant misrepresentation in graduate-level law programs. Practically every university will charge you more for your freshman core requirements than an associated community college, and they'll accept the CC's credits. When you agree that a far cheaper set of coursework is 100% equivalent to your more expensive offering, yet you still go to great lengths to convince students you're completely justified charging more and they believe you, that is some A-level fleecing.
If the only thing they were doing is selling you credits this might be the case
It isn't
Community colleges, are, by and large, terrible
They do try, and there are exceptions (almost always in the form of specific professors or departments) but there is a gulf between even the worst state schools and CCs in quality of education, even and perhaps especially at the survey level
What does it matter, if you're able to tackle the later coursework? A terrible Comp 1 class is equal to a fantastic, amazing Comp 1 class both in terms of the degree requirements to buy your credentials, and to your ability to succeed in meeting the rest of the requirements.
There's no reason Comp 1 from a university should cost you $1000 but only cost $125 at the community college.
False. Location is going to play a big role in all of this. Big Universities are either in cities, or at the center of college towns. Community colleges can exist anywhere, but usually don't require the same amount of capital to run. At the very base level, there's real estate. Then account for cost of living. Then account for having to pay people enough to attract talent.
Arguing that schools should be run more like a business is only going to escalate that problem, as market prices vary from place to place on pretty much anything.
none of that improves the quality of the education backing the credit, though...?
Well, no, not necessarily. The point is that you can't just put a stamp on a college course and say: all Comp 101 classes are $200. There are too many factors that go into higher education to sell it like it's some supermarket commodity. You need to have a campus, digital or physical. That costs money. You need to pay people, and some of them are going to want to be compensated for having awesome credentials.
Credentials they got from a university that offers highly-valued credentials due to the credentials of the professors? 8->
The prestige of the university comes form having capable graduates. Why is this so hard?
Psn:wazukki
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Life caught up with me. I'd probably still be in school had life gone a bit differently. I'm good at school. I'm good at that structure and those expectations. But. I was married and we were living with my mom who had lost all grip on reality and personal space at the time, Katrina hit, and I had a job opportunity (that I'm still in) I couldn't pass up. When this job ends I am high-tailing it to Atlanta and will probably be hitting up Emory for night classes while I work.
In the end, for me, this is the most important part of education. I applaud you both and if I implied that I thought less of comm college students in general, I do apologize and believe me that wasn't my intention.
Nah, I didn't get that sense at all.
If anything, the biggest educational mistake I made was my choice of 4-year universities. *shrug*
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Another thing I'd like to address is the unpaid internship.
I thought we made slavery illegal?
You're not really entitled to complain if you're also railing against students earning income-relevant credentials in university
I don't know that that's necessarily accurate.
A full time unpaid intenrship is inaccessible for a student at the income level I was on when in undergrad.
well, yes. To the extent that we desire that all people should be able to access qualifications that increase their potential, most Western societies already extensively subsidize it. They call it "university". If you oppose "university" serving this function, then it just gets shoveled out onto things that aren't subsidized and aren't accessible and yet that's exactly what you're cheering on here
I don't think you're understanding my opposition to unpaid internships...
"people should be paid more" runs up against "labour demand is not perfectly inelastic" at some point, you just get to choose where
Posts
fuck you!
I did love the lacross guy who showed up Junior year in the department thinking he was going to be a lawyer and then proceeded to be one of the worst speakers/writers I've ever met.
He did not return for senior year.
I don't think that's been universally true for twenty or thirty years at least. Probably much moreso in the sciences, but in the humanities? I have a degree in English lit. It is a rare soul who can translate that knowledge into any kind of informed judgment about what I've learned in the field, or what it's worth in terms of compensation or ability. I'm not saying that credentials are meaningless, but I am saying that their meaning often bears no relationship to the education a graduate may or may not have received.
Why is an English degree from Harvard better than one from Baylor? I doubt anyone here could tell either of us, but I'd also bet that a poll of opinions on which one is better will show a result of 100% Harvard. That's a great indication that the credentials have meaning, but the meaning isn't related to the education.
Also: what do you call a guy who graduates bottom of his class in med school?
"Doctor".
Just wait, in a couple years you'll be shocked at the ineptitude of some of your peers.
Baddies on the left and tryhards on the right.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
none of that improves the quality of the education backing the credit, though...?
That's most of what a community college is: Its a route for post-secondary education for those who are unwilling, unable due to outside circumstance, or who have not otherwise not demonstrated an ability to succeed at a more selective universities.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
i'm pretty sure that 'it's many, many, many thousands of dollars cheaper' has something to do with it, too. financial position and lifestyle can hamstring a student as much or more than inability or apathy.
I don't know that that's necessarily accurate.
A full time unpaid intenrship is inaccessible for a student at the income level I was on when in undergrad.
It should be noted that bottom of the class in med school is probably a B average. In graduate school of any time, you get more than one or two Cs and you're out. Claiming that being the bottom of the class in med school means you're an idiot that is somehow still a doctor is like claiming that the least intelligent Nobel Prize laureate in physics is an idiot.
Let's be more concrete then. University of Texas at Austin's freshman year costs ~$9000 in state not counting books and housing. The university owns the land through a grant enshrined in the Texas Constitution. A freshman taking a standard load is paying ~$1800 per course, about $600/credit hour. Let's be super generous and put 50% of that toward non-salary expenses of running the college... so we're talking ~$900 for Freshman Composition 101.
Austin Community College is 6 blocks away from the UT Campus and offers Composition 101 for $125. Do you really think UT's offering is 700% better?
Of course, this is only "wrong" if you had the ability and resources to go to a better one.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
The Vacaville facility has numerous 1 star reviews but one guy gave it 5 stars.
Do ... Do people do Yelp reviews of the mess halls?
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I can't remember that guy's name. I thought he was one of BCS, but apparently not.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well, no, not necessarily. The point is that you can't just put a stamp on a college course and say: all Comp 101 classes are $200. There are too many factors that go into higher education to sell it like it's some supermarket commodity. You need to have a campus, digital or physical. That costs money. You need to pay people, and some of them are going to want to be compensated for having awesome credentials.
Harvard also will probably have better professors, since they can pay and recruit the top members of the field which means that yes, the degree is better.
There are many things we learned in our English degrees that have better pay offs. For one, the ability to properly communicate and talk about ideas puts us ahead of a large swath of even college educated people.
If you try to make it as a writer, yeah, you're probably going to be poor, but an English degree is one of the most employable liberal arts degrees there is for the sheer number of applications.
It's just a good joke for business majors to make.
I'm not done but I feel the same
and I've been to two!... also two universities.
well, yes. To the extent that we desire that all people should be able to access qualifications that increase their potential, most Western societies already extensively subsidize it. They call it "university". If you oppose "university" serving this function, then it just gets shoveled out onto things that aren't subsidized and aren't accessible and yet that's exactly what you're cheering on here
In the end, for me, this is the most important part of education. I applaud you both and if I implied that I thought less of comm college students in general, I do apologize and believe me that wasn't my intention.
Credentials they got from a university that offers highly-valued credentials due to the credentials of the professors? 8->
I don't think you're understanding my opposition to unpaid internships...
In all seriousness, I did go, and it was a good decision. It saved me a lot of money, I got my grades to better reflect my abilities, got some good references, and when I transferred to a full university, I feel like I had matured enough to handle myself.
Schools have reputations. Those reputations are going to attract talent, or people who are specialists within a field that help build that reputation.
So...
yes?
That was the guy. Still at large being insane in Cambridge. That's what happens when you do Nobel prize worthy research during your PhD. IT's best to steet clear of success.
The prestige of the university comes form having capable graduates. Why is this so hard?
Nah, I didn't get that sense at all.
If anything, the biggest educational mistake I made was my choice of 4-year universities. *shrug*
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
"people should be paid more" runs up against "labour demand is not perfectly inelastic" at some point, you just get to choose where