As with many things in life, what people tend to get out of college is in direct proportion to the time and energy they put in.
But even for those who study hard, take more classes than they have to, utilize resources such as the campus career center and spend the rest of their time being involved on campus and making connections that will hopefully last a lifetime, the value of a college degree is decreasing steadily.
This is particularly true when the value of the degree is compared with the cost of obtaining one. The cost of a college degree continues to increase, despite wider access to information and resources. Without leaving your bedroom you can find university course schedules from Google, purchase textbooks on Amazon, download lectures from iTunes, and join an online chat discussions with students and professors from all over the world - all for a small fraction of tuition prices others pay to do the same from their dormrooms.
In his article "Is a College Degree Worthless?" Jack Hough from SmartMoney argues well that the problems with our education system aren't just those of rising costs:
A student who secures a degree is increasingly unlikely to make up its cost, despite higher pay, as I'll show. The employer who requires a degree puts faith in a system whose standards, you'll see, are slipping. Too many professors who are bound to degree teaching can't truly profess; they don't proclaim loudly the things they know but instead whisper them to a chosen few, whom they must then accommodate with inflated grades. Worst of all, bright citizens spend their lives not knowing the things they ought to know, because they've been granted liberal-arts degrees for something far short of a liberal-arts education.
The author does not argue against higher education, mind you, but rather of the degree system as it stands in America. He describes elite universities which have evolved into "machines that cull the bright from the dull and charge mightily to brand them for success -- which these students would have achieved anyhow, because they're bright."
He argues that we need a national, independent standard for certifying what students have learned, similar perhaps to the comprehensive AP exams given to high school grads with which students can obtain college credits in various subjects.
The system must change before students are made poorer, society grows less equal, the bright are left ignorant and "college" comes to mean a four-year pajama party intruded upon by the occasional group discussion on gender studies. The answer is to relieve schools of the job of validating knowledge and return them to a role of spreading it.
He advocates "knowledge transcripts" which could be continually updated much like a resume or credit report, regardless of where a person learned the information or how much they paid for it. What would these standardized, independent reports accomplish?
Employers would have better proof of what students knew. Policymakers, too. Students wouldn't pile on debt. They wouldn't be misled by a college degree into believing they knew more than they did. They'd become true stewards of their own lifelong education.
A grand vision indeed.


13 comments:
I love Jack Hough, and I've also noticed that degrees, even advanced ones (ask my best friend who got a masters in teaching from a "good name" college and said it was a mill, no paper-writing even required) are handed out to anyone. It's become a game; college being the new high school is an understatement.
Overhaul needed - and until then, it's every person for his/herself.
The problem in the US is that high schools mostly seem to perform poorly and so college has to make up the gap for a large proportion of students. I also think that the "Liberal Arts" approach is largely a waste of time except for a very small group of students at the top universities. And most undergraduates at those universities shouldn't be doing L.A. but getting more specialized. High Schools role should be to provide the well rounded education. There are too many people pursuing college degrees because of the weakness of high schools.... etc.
I went to grade school in the UK, did my undergrad degree in Israel and a PhD at a US university (BU). I also taught at BU and RPI for a total of 7 years. RPI is closer to the way I think a university should be structured than BU.
Any type of education standards test can be gamed the same way high schoolers game the SAT.
As a recent college graduate (UC Berkeley) I can say in my experience that a large part of a college education has only limited value, but the part that does have value will be extremely difficult to replicate through online courses.
This is especially true when you think about how unmotivated the average student is; even at top tier schools most students cut corners, only start studying the night before etc. The loosening of rules and structure, although inevitable, will only widen the gap between the talented and motivated and those who are less so.
Inherently that doesn't seem so bad, until you consider that society can't function with 80% of its members operating at a mental capacity one notch above functionally retarted.
It would be nice if you didn't bring the mentally retarded into it, Drew, but you could spell the word correctly if you insist on doing so anyway.
I don't buy into the idea that 100% of the population needs a college education. Wherever did that idea come from? (I have some ideas but I won't go into that.)
College educations are not what make the world go 'round; who is going to make your coffee and change your tires and replace your roof if everyone is a college graduate?
@444 good catch on the misspelling, rather ironic error on my part.
For the record I have a older sister with Williams Syndrome, so by no means was my reference to the mentally retarded one of ignorance or spite. It was however a relative evaluation of individuals born with "normal" intelligence who by their own indolence and lethargy operate at a mental capacity near my sisters (whose of course is limited by the shear chance of her genetics).
Further you assertion that the people that make you coffee are "who make the world go round" is asinine and inane. We have more people willing to do these jobs than we need and even if these people were in short supply we could allow immigrants from all over the world to come here and perform those very same tasks. The limiting factor on our nation's success and economic growth is determined by the intellectual capabilities and successes of our best and brightest. The people who fill our coffee are lucky enough to live in a world where they can perform a task which requires no cognitive ability and yet still enjoy the technelogical marvels developed by their peers.
Hi Meg, Kellie again. I was just wondering how you got people to read your blog when you first started out? You now have a big following and I can't even get one reader! Any advice would be great! I love your blog!
@ AussieSaver - what's your blog? I clicked on your name but you haven't activated your Blogger profile, so I can't get to your blog. I'd love to check it out!
You can add other bloggers you like to your blogroll and then comment/email and let them know you did and ask them to check you out. And linking to other people's blog or posts is a nice thing to do; bloggers can and often do notice when they are linked (by using Google or Technorati or Blogger) and they will appreciate it and often link back.
Good luck and happy blogging!
@ Moom - I agree that many people can and should get a specialized education of some kind - whether it's trade school (plumbing, welding, etc) or law school or business or medicine or engineering or architecture or software design or what have you so that they can make a living.
But I also think that understanding of the liberal arts - literature, art, history, language, economics, philosophy, etc - is essential and actually the definition of a well-educated person.
Going to university used to be solely about the liberal arts. Then AFTER that some people went on to study law or medicine or some other specialty. A society of people who know how to DO things is vastly different from one where people know how to THINK things.
Obviously high schools should begin the liberal arts education, but too many are still trying to teach students to read much less to understand and analyze literature. The system is broken.
I second Meg's comment. Once you have that done, go comment on lots of blogs. If you say interesting things people will click on your name and come to your blog from your profile. And the more comments you have on other blogs the more links there will be for Google to find to your blog which will help raise its profile in Google searches.
Meg: I'm all for study the social sciences and humanities. But as implemented as "Liberal Arts" in most US universities students have to check off a whole bunch of boxes of diversity requirements and get to take one or two courses in all kinds of different subjects. The majority of students taking these courses will I think remember little of what they studied. And they end up then taking less courses in their "major" than students in other countries that have more specialized degree programs.
In my undergraduate degree I studied geography and economics and only those subjects. We did about 7 courses per semester for 3 years in just those topics. I came out with a strong knowledge of both. I was shocked when I found that economics majors at BU didn't have to take calculus. It was a compulsory first year course in our program - if you didn't pass that and other courses you couldn't proceed in economics. At RPI students were required to pass an intermediate micro-economics course which required calculus.
In the traditional British university (19th century) you could study classics, law, medicine, divinity, philosophy etc. as a first degree (and it's still the case). The PhD started in Germany in the 19th century. I'm not sure how and when the US went down the road of these general liberal arts degrees that you had to get before studying law or medicine or whatever.
Meg, my blog is http://aussiesaverblog.blogspot.com/
I don't know how to activate my blogger profile. Thanks for the advice!
Aussiesaver - go to the "dashboard" on Blogger - click "edit my profile" then check the box "share my profile".
Thanks mOOm and Meg! I have done that so please do click on and view my blog! Thanks a lot for the advice!
Post a Comment