May we please stop pushing college degrees for all?

Consider the following, which are the concluding sentences from James Surowiecki's "Financial Page" column in the New Yorker:

We should also rethink our assumption that college is always the right answer, regardless of cost. Politicians love to invoke education as the solution to our economic ills. But they’re often papering over the fact that our economy just isn’t creating enough good jobs for ordinary Americans. The notion that college will transform your job prospects is, in many cases, an illusion, and for a while for-profit schools turned it into a very lucrative one.

Now, read the following sentences from the concluding paragraph in Rebecca Schuman's column at Slate:

The university classroom benefits from a diversity of backgrounds, including first-generation students who absolutely should get any support they need with college readiness. Every American who wants to attend college should be able to (and for a lot less money than they’re currently laying out). But those who don’t want to shouldn’t feel like they have to

Here is the problem: Surowiecki and Schuman are not higher education "insiders."  Yes, Schuman, is an adjunct faculty after earning her doctorate.  After being on the doctoral path at Yale, Surowiecki became a journalist/writer.  For all purposes, both are "outsiders" looking in at higher education when they conclude that the push for college degree for all is not worth the talk, leave alone the money that we invest.

It is an open secret anymore that we are unnecessarily pushing college degrees down the throats of young, and older, adults.  All we have managed to achieve through this is an enormous level of credential inflation.  Which is what Schuman notes as well:

the solution is to stop requiring a bachelor’s degree to be an office assistant, or a paralegal, or any number of professions that up until recently could be staffed—successfully—by the holder of an associate’s degree or high-school diploma.

The first ever op-ed of mine that was published along these lines was about two decades ago.  Yep, back in California, not too long after earning my doctorate, I argued in that opinion piece that we were committing a double crime of pushing college degrees and undermining vocational education.  Nobody cared then because I was an outsider--I was not in academia at that time.  (Well, ok, there was one wonderful benefit from that--a Mike contacted me after reading the column, which later led to dinners as well.)

As an academic, of course, I have written quite a few op-eds by now criticizing the overselling of college degrees and the under-investment in vocational education.  The only time that a fellow academic responded to it, well, it was pretty much a personal attack.  Otherwise, the higher education professionals remain silent as ever.  Why?  It should not surprise you by now--this college degree issue is merely one of the many examples for why I loved the George Bernard Shaw quote as the title for this blog itself: every profession is a conspiracy against the laity.



(BTW, keep in mind that the criticism is against the push for college degrees; having a degree is not the same as having been educated, wherein lies a huge part of the problem.)

Can Oregon's "Pay it foward" tame the higher education cost monster?

While “Pay it forward” is an interesting and innovative thought experiment in the context of funding for higher education, I am afraid that it will not solve the problem of the ever increasing costs associated with earning college credentials.

To begin with, “Pay it forward” is something like the social security idea, but in reverse.  

With social security, we contribute into the system in order to pay the current beneficiaries, with the understanding that we, too, will be able to collect those same benefits upon gaining eligibility decades later.  

With “Pay it forward,” college-attending students will be able to collect the benefits first, and then contribute to the system for twenty years.

Such schemes require redistributing money by collecting from one group in order to pay another group.  Fairness, or unfairness, in any redistribution, depends on the beholders and their values.  

For example, in the current public higher education system, where taxpayers pay for a portion of the college expenses, those who choose not to attend college do not benefit from this redistribution.  Given that the income levels of families is a pretty good proxy to estimate the probability of whether or not students will attend college, and complete the degree requirements, the current system is quite regressive in how it ends up subsidizing middle and upper income families.

Similarly, the “Pay it forward” scheme will have its own set of unfairness.  The repayment, for all practical purposes, is a three-percent income tax on top of all the other income and payroll taxes.  This means that the cost of higher education will not be shared equally and will, in effect, mean that high income earners will end up subsidizing those who earn considerably less.  

Further, while female students outnumber males at colleges and universities--it is roughly a 60/40 split at Western oregon University, where I teach--a significant percentage of women opt to be homemakers after they complete their formal collegiate education, at both the low and high ends of the family incomes.  It is not clear how those who choose to be non-wage earners will pay it forward and, if they do not pay, then the cost of their education will have to picked up by those who are wage-earners?

Also, the “Pay it forward” system could potentially lead to the state government getting out of the funding process altogether.  

As competition for its budgetary resources increase, lawmakers will be tempted more and more to set aside money for the K-12 system, or the criminal justice system, while reducing the funding for higher education other than to stand as a guarantor to the “pay it forward” funds.

All these troubling questions aside, the “Pay it forward” idea does not get into the fundamental reason behind such out-of-the-box proposals-- for decades now, the cost of higher education has been increasing at rates that significantly exceed inflation.  

”Pay it forward” is merely a proposal to pay for the costs, without measures to restrain further increases.  It will mean that colleges and universities might not be compelled to innovate, and can, instead, continue to spend money on athletics, on student life bureaucracy, on fancy dormitories, or on esoteric topics that fit the faculty’s fancies, while worrying even less about the cost dimension, and with even less taxpayer oversight than before.

I hope that the pilot project will address these and more issues.  Else, similar to how we are now discussing the budgetary issues related to social security, future generations will be burdened with the obligations of “Pay it forward.”

Update: a slightly edited version of this was published as an op-ed in the Statesman Journal (September 1 2013)

Like youth, money and education are also wasted on the young?

There were a number of reasons why I hated--yes, that strong an emotion--the college where I did my undergraduate studies. One of them was this: the pathetic library it had.

Now, maybe my expectations coming out of high school were unrealistic.  But, I had assumed that a college would have a library that would be way more than what my college offered.  Thus, whenever I went to Chennai, where my parents lived, I then spent quite some time at the libraries at the US Consulate (thank you, America!,) the British Council, and at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT.)

Sometime during my second year, I think it was, I had an unpleasant experience at the IIT library.  The security guy at the library door asked for my student ID.  I told him that I was a student at a different college not at IIT.  He said I couldn't go in because it was for students.  I got pissed off.  I got into an argument with him and asked to meet with the officer in charge of the library.

The security guy walked me over to some guy's office and I explained the situation.  He, too, said that it was for the IIT students and that he could make an exception if I proved to him that I was a student at the college in Coimbatore that I said I was.

This made me even angrier.  I explained to him that IIT was a government institution and that I had a right to use the library, whether or not I had an ID card. It being the India of 30 years ago where authority was to be respected--perhaps things haven't changed much since--my comments and arguments were not welcomed and I was shown the door.  That was, of course, my last time also at the IIT library!

The break ended, and I returned to my college.

I was asked to meet with the principal. I thought it might be over the graffiti that I had created in my dorm room ceiling.  Turned out that it was about my encounter at the IIT library.  Apparently I had created a bad name for the college with my behavior at IIT.  I thought to myself that there were a lot more things that the college had to be ashamed about and my behavior was not one of them. But, I kept my mouth shut.

Now, I am in a different part of the world, and in a completely different academic setting.  But, what troubles me is this: high school students and their families checking out our campus as one of their options do not seem to care much about the quality of academic programs or about what our library offers.  Instead, they are far more interested to know how good the gym facilities are.  They are more interested in whether the giant size television set will fit into the dorm room.  They want to know about practically everything that should not matter to them all that much.

What high school students and their families do not realize is that the more they ask those kinds of questions, the more colleges and universities are happy to provide state-of-the-art gyms with climbing walls.  Bigger and fancier dorm rooms.  Rich and tasty food opportunities.

What high school students and their families do not realize is that the more colleges and universities spend money on these, well, the more students and their families have to pay up as well.  They shouldn't be surprised at the end of it all that it is the students and their families who then end up in debt, which has now reached new heights (depths?):

The average debt load for each borrower receiving a bachelor’s degree this year is about $30,000, according to an analysis of government data by Mark Kantrowitz, publisher at student-marketing company Edvisors. That number has doubled over the course of a recent graduate’s lifetime. Even adjusting for inflation, the average debt burden was half that size 20 years ago.
Other groups put the average debt figure even higher. A poll from Fidelity Investments earlier this week found 70% of graduates had at least some debt, and the average was $35,200. That figure is higher in part because it includes debt owed to family and credit-card balances

Tomorrow, the campus will hold a rally on the "dire" funding situation for public universities like the one where I teach.  Accusations will be hurled at every possible direction except one: ourselves.  I am willing to bet that there will not be a single placard denouncing the wasteful expenditures on fancy dorms, on the fancy gym, on athletics, .... A good time will be had by all at the BBQ, which will be paid for by the students themselves.

I will not be there, of course.  I do not have the youthful energy that I had when I protested at IIT thirty years ago.

ps: one of the many announcements on the event tomorrow:

WOU 082 SEIU 503, Western Oregon Federation of Teachers (WOUFT) and the Associated Students of Western Oregon University (ASWOU) are pleased to invite you to the

First Annual Western Oregon United (WOU) BBQ and Rally Tomorrow at 12 noon sharp on the WUC Plaza

We hope for a sun break but have inclement weather plans and a dry place for lunch and our incredible speakers. Please bring a jacket or umbrella because, rain or shine, we will be outside for a few minutes. We are Western and a little rain can't keep us down. LUNCH IS PROVIDED.
Tomorrow is about celebrating what staff, students and faculty have in common. The three groups will not always agree, but let's find where we do and work together to benefit all. One such place is state funding of higher education. Appropriations are falling. Tuition is rising. Services are decreasing. Benefits are falling. Wages need improvement.
It is apparent, business as usual is not working.
I think there is a better way. We need to move beyond fighting each other for diminishing funds with diminishing returns. Such tactics serve only to distract from the real issue -- the need for Oregon to reinvest in public higher education. Let's resist the politics of division and fund higher education without doing it on the backs of students. Or those who proudly serve them.
This won't be easy, change rarely is. However, change starts tomorrow. Join staff, students and faculty by gathering as close to 12 noon as possible on the WUC Plaza.

Country club colleges = student debt and no learning!

As if I am not being Quixotic enough in my tilting at the academic windmills, a student, "Z," emails me the link to this NY Times column by Frank Bruni. That column, which I hadn't read until Z emailed me, is about the ongoing struggles in Texas--a struggle against the university system, led by an ideologically driven governor, Rick Perry, and the regents of the board that oversees the university system.  Of course, all the regents are Perry's appointees, which makes the effort to reform higher education nothing but a political issue.  Politics rarely ever solves problems and, instead, creates more.

The fundamental problem is, of course, the escalating costs.  What Z probably didn't know was that I was holding myself back from blogging, yet again, about this.  I mean, at some point I have to take a break from this and watch reruns of How I Met Your Mother!  But, his email pushed me over.

Todays's hassles began much before Z's email reached me.  It started earlier this afternoon when I read this oped in the LA Times.  I tell ya, from coast to coast, the cost of higher education is one hot issue--unfortunately, all talk and no shit!

Today's plush campuses ply students with absurdly lavish goods and services. No wonder it's so hard for them to pay their bills when they get out in the real world.

Written by a father of a girl who is in high school.  What makes it even more insightful is this: he "teaches history and education at New York University."  So, the insider perspective doubles--a father and a university professor--writing about, yes, climbing walls too.  A lot more than climbing walls though.  From "walk-in tanning booth" to 2,100-gallon aquarium, to, my favorite, "spherical nap pods."  (Note to myself: email the campus that our recruitment will skyrocket if we built "spherical nap pods" right in the classrooms--after all, classrooms have always been only for sleeping and this way, students won't feel the pain when their heads crash on the desk!)

What if universities declared a moratorium on new construction? It's not as crazy as it sounds. At my own institution, New York University, faculty and students have been protesting a projected $6-billion expansion. It's likely to add to students' debt, which is already 40% higher than the national average. And lots of nice new stuff won't prepare them for life after graduation, which won't be nearly as cushy.

Ha, my kind of a guy--has no clue that such suggestions will go nowhere.  A moratorium on new construction?  What has this lefty faculty been smoking in his office!  I should have bookmarked an article that I read a few weeks ago--it was all about how hot the construction business is in higher education.

That oped concludes:

"This is the first generation that can expect to do less well than their parents, and that's a terrifying prospect," Dunham told Oberlin's alumni magazine last spring. But you wouldn't know that from looking at our colleges, which have continued to spend as if there's no tomorrow. And that might be the most terrifying prospect of all.

It is one heck of a lack of critical thinking when students fail to make the connection between their soaring debts when they graduate and the country-club amenities they seek when in college.  Shouldn't they be scoping out colleges that do not waste money on expensive amenities?  More than that, what the hell is wrong with the parents--how come they don't ask those tough questions?  Are they happy to relive a youthful experience vicariously through their sons and daughters?

This country-club attitude simply cannot go on forever:

The amenities arms race may attract students and publicity in the short term, but in the long term the strategy might be a risky game.

What if we take away the residential college and promote MOOC is what Rick Perry and his ten-gallon hats are asking.  There is one fundamental flaw with MOOC: that anybody who signs up for one will come to understand:

[The] first thing I learned? When it comes to Massive Open Online Courses, like those offered by Coursera, Udacity and edX, you can forget about the Socratic method.
The professor is, in most cases, out of students’ reach, only slightly more accessible than the pope or Thomas Pynchon. Several of my Coursera courses begin by warning students not to e-mail the professor. We are told not to “friend” the professor on Facebook. If you happen to see the professor on the street, avoid all eye contact (well, that last one is more implied than stated). There are, after all, often tens of thousands of students and just one top instructor.        

That matters to faculty like me who continuously bug students with questions.  We want to behave like Socrates who went around asking Athenians questions all the time.  No wonder they finally gave him an option: get the hell out, or die!

As I have often noted here, university students are all too familiar with bubbling-in answers to tests.  Most classes are far from a Socratic environment.  Then they come to classes like mine and experience a culture-shock.  And I get a shock when they tell me that they had always earned "A"s and "B"s in their three years and, therefore, it is not possible that they can be the "C" students that they are in my classes.

The author notes in that oped on MOOC that the teacher-student interactions in the classes he took were at a "D" grade level, while student-student interaction was slightly better at B-.  So, at this rate, go MOOC yourself can be a good curse for anybody!

We seem to be doing everything the worst possible way.  I routinely warn students that education is about their futures.  I assume that most simply dismiss my cautions.  Being dismissed is not a new experience for me.  After all these years, I am used to it.

It shocks me anymore when I notice a student actually having paid attention to my feedback.  That too happened earlier today, in an email from a student:

I appreciate that you take the time to actually read all of our work and take the time to comment on things you liked and on things that needed work. 

An email here, a comment there, and Z or T or a few others engaging me means that I have enough and more to keep going.  Until I am offered a cup of hemlock, that is ;)

Description at the source:
The College of New Rochelle, which opened a $28-million wellness center (above) in 2008,
could be one example of what researchers describe as institutions caught up in an amenities arms race