College Tuition

[quote name='MSI Magus'] Yes ideally research and employment would be separated. As of right now they are not and thus its justifiable to say when I or most others go to a university its not for education its for a degree to get a better job. Untill that is fixed universities serve a duel role as a place that exists to better your mind and a place that exists to better your career.[/quote]

My point is many kids could do just as well going to a trade school or community college. And many would do better in those settings as they lack the interest, motivation and/or ability to succeed in a research university setting.

We just need to remove the stigma from those places among the people doing the hiring. Let universities focus on research and teaching young scholars, rather than dumbing down classes to the lowest common denominator since class room are packed with students who mostly don't care and just want to party and get a degree to get a job.

But I know I need to stop being so frustrated and ranting so much. I'm just very burnt out on the teaching bullshit and problems with US higher ed. Even more gloomy since classes start back next week, so I'm in the throes of start of the fall semester depression!

Anyway, if things don't change in the near future, I think I'm done with this and off to either a research firm or another country. I'm tired of the stress and lower pay etc.

Also books are not just the fault of book publishers. My wife at the University of Toledo has had to buy ever increasing number of books that are specific to her campus or that are titled "UT edition 2011" or some such nonsense.
Click to expand...

Weird, I've not seen that. I've seen course packs which are collections of readings the professor puts together with the university publishing (who handles the copyright arrangements etc.). But those are usually cheap and used to avoid assigning expensive textbooks.

Universities also control the curriculum and they also control the used book store on campus that gouges students with tricks like selling required online keys at prices similar to the freaking price of a new book store.
Click to expand...

The first is somewhat true in terms of what courses are offered. But otherwise the curriculum is up to the professor. I can choose what book I want to use, what I want to cover in the course (as long as its topical to the course) etc.

As for the bookstores, everywhere I've been the campus books store was owned by a big company like B&N and they did both the new and used books. There were also off campus book stores that had nothing to do with the university that sold new and use books--but the prices where usually not much different.
 
The job market has really changed. There are so many people applying that they will require a college degree just to weed out some people. Most people will use their degree in a completely different field. Many entry level jobs that can be done by a high school graduate are asking for a college degree.
 
[quote name='62t']The job market has really changed. There are so many people applying that they will require a college degree just to weed out some people. Most people will use their degree in a completely different field. Many entry level jobs that can be done by a high school graduate are asking for a college degree.[/QUOTE]

That's the biggest part of the problem. There's this unnecessary requirement to have a college degree for jobs where a high school graduate could do them. And even more where a 2-year degree from the community college or certification from trade schools etc. would be more than sufficient.

It leads to too many people wasting time and money in college and not getting any thing out of it as they don't put in the time and effort to really learn a lot, and it doesn't help them on the job market since most everyone they're going up against also has degrees nowadays.
 
[quote name='camoor']It may shock you guys to know that not everyone goes to college for the sole purpose of landing a job. Is it a big factor in the decision-making process - sure. But sometimes a well-rounded education reaps other life rewards. There is more to life then earning a paycheck.

I don't expect much from Knoell (let's face it...) but TB - I remember you sunk money into a house in the hopes of scoring some easy money and lost big. I've lost a few g's in the stock market myself. And you know what I found - evaluating all of my expenditures, it turns out that investing in myself was the best investment that I made (both for monetary and quality of life reasons)[/QUOTE]

I can respect that.

I admit to being slightly bitter on this issue for various reasons. I've historically done as well or better than my degree-holding friends. I took a few college classes and found them utterly pointless - as I learned more from my own reading.

If someone has the money and wants to learn, I take no issue in going to school. I get agitated at the notion that is pushed down everyones throat that they're essentially worthless without a piece of paper that they must pursue at any cost.

I also acknowledge and respect the need for certain professions to have certification requirements that are relatively high (like doctors) for the betterment of society.
 
You guys aren't looking at this problem from a far enough vantage point. Instead of looking at higher education as its own system and how you fix it from within, you need to look at how higher education fits in larger systems. You're never going to fix higher education from within because it's subject to heavy influence from other systems.

If the goal of college is to learn and create knowledge while preparing you for the workforce, as we simply can't ignore how having a degree is directly linked to lifetime earning potential, then we must make it so that paid-for-education is not needed to make a living wage. The private sector has practically completely externalized training costs by "requiring" a college degree for something like an secretary(nothing demeaning implied as it is a respectable job). Saying that people "need" a degree doesn't fix anything while relying on the system to magically change.

What would change is to lessen the earning disparity between those with and without degrees. Having trade schools like ITT Tech or other for profit programs isn't the answer. We need to bring back paid apprenticeships while strengthening the unions to make sure that workers are sufficiently trained like they do now, but to expand into other occupations that could benefit from those programs. We need to make sure that living wages are paid across society.

MSI Magus, just because you don't have expertise on race or academia doesn't mean that what others say is extreme. The only thing extreme here is your ignorance about how those systems work. I know nothing about multiple sclerosis(I think you mentioned that you have it) beyond Montel Williams having it. What would you say if you I said that the effects of MS are highly exaggerated and not a big deal because Montel Williams looks fine...that it's a fake disease made up by lazy fuckers like you to live on the dole. Then if you came back with facts about it, I'd say that you're just being an extremist. And then I'd insist that there's nothing else I need to know about it. Does this help shine any light on your lack of perspective?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I can respect that.

I admit to being slightly bitter on this issue for various reasons. I've historically done as well or better than my degree-holding friends. I took a few college classes and found them utterly pointless - as I learned more from my own reading.

If someone has the money and wants to learn, I take no issue in going to school. I get agitated at the notion that is pushed down everyones throat that they're essentially worthless without a piece of paper that they must pursue at any cost.

I also acknowledge and respect the need for certain professions to have certification requirements that are relatively high (like doctors) for the betterment of society.[/QUOTE]

Definately - I agree.

Just an extra somewhat off-topic thought - taking the real long view, I think it's important as a civilization to invest in research of all subjects, whether it be for the betterment of mankind or for nothing else but the sake of knowing more. Unfortunately I think most Americans don't understand this one bit.
 
[quote name='dohdough']The private sector has practically completely externalized training costs by "requiring" a college degree for something like an secretary(nothing demeaning implied as it is a respectable job). Saying that people "need" a degree doesn't fix anything while relying on the system to magically change. [...] We need to bring back paid apprenticeships while strengthening the unions to make sure that workers are sufficiently trained like they do now, but to expand into other occupations that could benefit from those programs.[/QUOTE]

This is a "chicken and the egg" type thing, but it would take a lot to go back to where the business trains the individual.

American society has changed - a lot. Before, yes, you received a lot of your training from within your business - but employees had a lot more loyalty towards their employer. "Company man", 50 years of service, etc., etc... These are things that your and my generation don't go for. If someone comes along and offers you or I job that pays more, has better hours, is stable, better benefits, etc., we'd likely jump ship - no questions asked. So why would our current employer want to invest tons of cash into training us (which *is* expensive - you think college tuition is expensive? Imagine trying to train these people one-on-one or in small groups) when, in two months, you might get a better job and pack up and leave? I think most Americans under 40 prefer a workforce where they're not tied to any specific business... and as long as that's the case, I don't see any specific business looking to pay to train you so you can go work elsewhere.
 
Well, that goes both ways. A lot of the end of the loyal "company man" wasn't employees jumping ship for greener pastures. It was companies not returning the loyalty and shifting jobs overseas, forcing retirements so they could higher younger and cheaper employees etc.

[quote name='camoor']
Just an extra somewhat off-topic thought - taking the real long view, I think it's important as a civilization to invest in research of all subjects, whether it be for the betterment of mankind or for nothing else but the sake of knowing more. Unfortunately I think most Americans don't understand this one bit.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more with this.

And sadly it's not just people not wanting to pay for it, it's that intellectualism has became a dirty word for much of society. It's not really new though. Today's "latte sipping elitist intellectuals" were McCarthy's "communists." The US has very blue collar roots so there's always been a lot of disdain toward intellectual professions in certain segments of society.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, that goes both ways. A lot of the end of the loyal "company man" wasn't employees jumping ship for greener pastures. It was companies not returning the loyalty and shifting jobs overseas, forcing retirements so they could higher younger and cheaper employees etc.[/quote]
Yup. There's a reason why wages have not only stagnated, but household income has deflated as more of them are two-incomes now.


Couldn't agree more with this.

And sadly it's not just people not wanting to pay for it, it's that intellectualism has became a dirty word for much of society. It's not really new though. Today's "latte sipping elitist intellectuals" were McCarthy's "communists." The US has very blue collar roots so there's always been a lot of disdain toward intellectual professions in certain segments of society.
Click to expand...
Ahhh yes. The wonderful remnants of classism *cough*class warfare*cough* when the poor were effectively barred from education and the realm of the wealthy. Some things never change...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
One shouldn't choose comparative literature or something like that unless they want to go on to the terminal degree and work in academia, or maybe want to go get a masters in education and teach literature in high school etc. It's up to the students to plan accordingly.

And again, we need to remove the stigma from community colleges and trade schools and get more businesses hiring graduates from these places. They may not be as well rounded as a university grad, but they should know all they need to know for an entry level job in their field, so the stigma is silly. And just wastes students time and money, and wastes the time and energy of professors at research universities, by forcing uninterested students to go to universities and take classes they don't care about.[/QUOTE]

But people do chose those degrees and worse, the colleges let them. There by taking their money and giving them something of little to no value in return.

I do agree with you 100% about trade schools. My wife just finished a 13 month LPN career academy place. It might have cost the same as a state college program but you're done quicker (13 month as opposed to two years or more).

I also wish the pricing system at universities is different as well. A chemical engineering degree should not cost the same as an English or Sociology degree. No matter how idealistic you are, these two things are not valued the same by society.
The cost of degree should be tied more to the expected salary.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']But people do chose those degrees and worse, the colleges let them. There by taking their money and giving them something of little to no value in return.
[/quote]

But as others have noted, students choosing those majors know they aren't going to get good jobs because of them--unless they go on to grad school etc., and even then it's tough as there isn't a lot of jobs in the academic market in those smaller field.

They choose to study it because it's what they love and they want to learn as much as they can about it. Thus there's nothing wrong with a university offering such programs. Students know what they're getting into if they major in philosophy or comparative literature etc. i.e. they're not doing it with the goal of getting a job. I've never known a philosophy or art history etc. major who didnt' actively know that the degree was useless in the job market. They were just interested in the topic and not interested in working yet etc.

But again, the university exists first and foremost to promote scholarship, research and learning, not to get people jobs. That's a secondary purpose and one that society has forced on them by so many jobs stupidly requiring degrees for positions that don't need them.


I also wish the pricing system at universities is different as well. A chemical engineering degree should not cost the same as an English or Sociology degree. No matter how idealistic you are, these two things are not valued the same by society.
The cost of degree should be tied more to the expected salary.
Click to expand...

Again, the main purpose of universities isn't to get people salaries. That's secondary to the knowledge creation/scholarship purpose.

So I'd never support pricing on that level as the last thing I want is to further reinforce the misconception that university's main purpose is to get people jobs. That's what trade schools etc. exist solely for. It's just one part of a university's mission, and not the main part by a longshot IMO.

And tuition is going to cost the same as all majors are using the same facilities, same amount of faculty hours etc. The only area there's a difference is faculty salaries as faculty are paid more in some majors than others. But that doesn't really affect tuition as those are mostly areas where there is ton of research grant money and the high paid faculty are paying a lot of their salary on their own through overhead on the grants they bring in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']
The university exists to promote scholarship, research and learning, not to get people jobs. That's a secondary purpose and one that society has forced on them by so many jobs stupidly requiring degrees for positions that don't need them.

Again, the main purpose of universities isn't to get people salaries. That's secondary to the knowledge creation/scholarship purpose.
[/QUOTE]

This. I've seen way too many people in college that don't really belong there, or aren't interested in learning. Most people would be better served going to a technical school.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, that goes both ways. A lot of the end of the loyal "company man" wasn't employees jumping ship for greener pastures. It was companies not returning the loyalty and shifting jobs overseas, forcing retirements so they could higher younger and cheaper employees etc.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I don't doubt that this is part of it as well (again, chicken or the egg) - but it goes back to my original statement that a *lot* of things have changed...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hmph. Guess my call to abolish sports is not what everyone desires, but not enough to argue with it.

Drat.[/QUOTE]

No, I agree. But it's not going to happen...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hmph. Guess my call to abolish sports is not what everyone desires, but not enough to argue with it.

Drat.[/QUOTE]

I'm very torn on it myself. I grew up in a state with no pro sports so I've always been a huge college sports fan.

But I know money wise it's terrible for universities, not to mention all the extra headache as a prof dealing with students who wouldn't be in a university if they weren't on academic scholarship and all the bitching when they're GPA is risking falling under a 2.0 etc.

I'd say the solution is to get rid of Title IX and also require athletic departments to be operate in the black. Scale it back to only the elite programs that can make money. Have big club/intramural programs for all the non-revenue sports and even basketball at schools where it can't make money. Football is harder to do as a club sport due to the equipment costs, higher level of injuries etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd say the solution is to get rid of Title IX and also require athletic departments to be operate in the black.[/QUOTE]

For the sake of argument... and really, I don't care much one way or the other here, but why only require athletic departments to "operate in the black"? Why not require all departments to operate under these same rules?

Most sports (and I'm not a sports fan in any way, shape or form, unless you count the Mario sports titles...) have the ability to teach individuals things from teamwork and physical fitness to strategy, critical thinking and some mid-range mathematics (namely, statistics). If you're trying to push the idea of a university as a place to generate knowledge (which includes teaching), why should a sports program be held under a different light than any other program that can be used to teach?
 
Because the purpose of a university is knowledge creation, and that's not going to be profitable in every field. Some topics just have hardly any grant funding and research universities are really the only places that work is getting done.

I just don't by the parallel to sports. You can have gym classes, physical education majors etc. where students play sports and learn all that team work stuff and get all the physical fitness stuff for a fraction of the cost of having an actual team that has to travel around the region (and sometimes the country) playing games etc.
 
Football is indeed tough.

The free market will sort it out. I'm tired of subsidizing the cost of training NFL players.

;)

Ever see the frontline episode on the NCAA from this past March?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You can have gym classes, physical education majors etc. where students play sports and learn all that team work stuff and get all the physical fitness stuff for a fraction of the cost of having an actual team that has to travel around the region (and sometimes the country) playing games etc.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I can agree with that. Seems to me, though, it would make more sense to reformulate the rules for the sports programs rather than decree that they must be profitable or be cut - a rule that would be scoffed at if it was made for any other program.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Football is indeed tough.

The free market will sort it out. I'm tired of subsidizing the cost of training NFL players.

;)

Ever see the frontline episode on the NCAA from this past March?[/QUOTE]

Haven't seen it.

As for subsidizing the training of NFL players, that's really only true on a large scale of the FBS teams (division 1A before--119 schools). And even then the bulk of the NFL draft worthy talent is in the 6 BCS conferences.

Otherwise it's just a player here or there who makes the NFL. The other schools don't have teams full of players with at least semi-realistic NFL like the elite programs due.

So I'd really like to see the BCS conference teams just break off into 4 or 5 larger conferences, split from the NCAA adn do things very differently. Get the NFL to budget them as their minor league basically and make the football teams big money makers for all these schools.

For the remaining schools football can just go away if they can't find away to run it in the black--i.e. by being more reginal based and lowering travel costs, fielding smaller rosters, having fewer players on scholarship etc.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Oh, I can agree with that. Seems to me, though, it would make more sense to reformulate the rules for the sports programs rather than decree that they must be profitable or be cut - a rule that would be scoffed at if it was made for any other program.[/QUOTE]

It's because the athletic department isn't part of the academic portion of the university. Kids aren't earning credits by practicing and playing games.

It has nothing to do with the mission statement of the university. It's a purely extracurricular activity. So I don't think it needs treated the same as academic departments in the university are, as it's not an academic department.
 
I think the only thing we need to get rid of is football really, I'm okay with sports in college, but football has gotten a bit out of control.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's because the athletic department isn't part of the academic portion of the university. Kids aren't earning credits by practicing and playing games.

It has nothing to do with the mission statement of the university. It's a purely extracurricular activity. So I don't think it needs treated the same as academic departments in the university are, as it's not an academic department.[/QUOTE]

I can see that. But should all extracurricular activities be required to operate "in the black"?
 
[quote name='docvinh']I think the only thing we need to get rid of is football really, I'm okay with sports in college, but football has gotten a bit out of control.[/QUOTE]

It's gotten out of hand in terms of becoming big business.

But it is usually the program that makes the most/loses the least money for schools as it has the most demand and highest ticket prices. As well as biggest TV contracts (though that only really matters to the schools in the BCS leagues). Though football is a big money loser at a lot of schools. Especially places that build or expanded a big stadium and can't fill it every week etc. So it can be a problem in that way too some places.

But at a lot of major universities football is making money and helping lessen the losses of the non-revenue sports.


[quote name='UncleBob']I can see that. But should all extracurricular activities be required to operate "in the black"?[/QUOTE]

No. It's good to have some extra curricular activities for students for sure.

But with the athletic department we're talking many schools losing millions of dollars on their athletic department. So it's a matter of scale.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's gotten out of hand in terms of becoming big business.

But it is usually the program that makes the most/loses the least money for schools as it has the most demand and highest ticket prices. As well as biggest TV contracts (though that only really matters to the schools in the BCS leagues). Though football is a big money loser at a lot of schools. Especially places that build or expanded a big stadium and can't fill it every week etc. So it can be a problem in that way too some places.

But at a lot of major universities football is making money and helping lessen the losses of the non-revenue sports.




No. It's good to have some extra curricular activities for students for sure.

But with the athletic department we're talking many schools losing millions of dollars on their athletic department. So it's a matter of scale.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I guess my problem is that it has become a business, when it was supposed to be something for students to do. I guess what we really need to do is just scale back programs, maybe make them more like club sports as others have suggested.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But with the athletic department we're talking many schools losing millions of dollars on their athletic department. So it's a matter of scale.[/QUOTE]

I can agree with that as well - so, how about a rule that states only $X can be lost into an XCA before it is cut or something similar?
 
[quote name='docvinh']Yeah, I guess my problem is that it has become a business, when it was supposed to be something for students to do. I guess what we really need to do is just scale back programs, maybe make them more like club sports as others have suggested.[/QUOTE]

I'd say go the other way in the big time football and basketball schools. Make the NFL and NBA help fund them since they're basically they're minor leagues (unlike baseball which runs it's own minor league system).

They're won't be a change away from it being big business, so might as well really start running them like businesses rather than trying to pretend that's not what they are.

Hell don't even require the students to go to school. Just treat them as university employees who can take classes for free if they want. Otherwise their purpose is to make the school money, and earn a minor league salary. Only at the big, BCS type schools that could break away and for this type of league though.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I can agree with that as well - so, how about a rule that states only $X can be lost into an XCA before it is cut or something similar?[/QUOTE]

That would be fine.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd say go the other way in the big time football and basketball schools. Make the NFL and NBA help fund them since they're basically they're minor leagues (unlike baseball which runs it's own minor league system).

They're won't be a change away from it being big business, so might as well really start running them like businesses rather than trying to pretend that's not what they are.

Hell don't even require the students to go to school. Just treat them as university employees who can take classes for free if they want. Otherwise their purpose is to make the school money, and earn a minor league salary. Only at the big, BCS type schools that could break away and for this type of league though.[/QUOTE]

This exactly what I've been thinking. I don't understand why they just can't be employees. I was thinking too that there could be a "club" football team if there are really people who want to play it for fun.
 
[quote name='docvinh'] I was thinking too that there could be a "club" football team if there are really people who want to play it for fun.[/QUOTE]

The problem with that is the equipment is expensive, and the high rate of injuries.

So all you really get is the intramural flag football clubs--with the to tier of those competing in tourneys with other universities in the region.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm very torn on it myself. I grew up in a state with no pro sports so I've always been a huge college sports fan.

But I know money wise it's terrible for universities, not to mention all the extra headache as a prof dealing with students who wouldn't be in a university if they weren't on academic scholarship and all the bitching when they're GPA is risking falling under a 2.0 etc.

I'd say the solution is to get rid of Title IX and also require athletic departments to be operate in the black. Scale it back to only the elite programs that can make money. Have big club/intramural programs for all the non-revenue sports and even basketball at schools where it can't make money. Football is harder to do as a club sport due to the equipment costs, higher level of injuries etc.[/QUOTE]

Title IX almost cause my school to lose their baseball team. Title IX is a problem because there isn't a equal number of sports between male and female (ie no female football team)
 
It's also a problem as the female sports make no money--only a few top women's basketball programs like UCONN make any money. Even at schools with top men's basketball programs, the women's team is usually a money drain. Which is compounded by the unequal number of sports problem.

The main negative consequence at my alma mater is that men's track got the ax because of Title XI. That's also a negative for football recruiting as a lot of the fast players want to also go somewhere they can run track.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd say go the other way in the big time football and basketball schools. Make the NFL and NBA help fund them since they're basically they're minor leagues (unlike baseball which runs it's own minor league system).

They're won't be a change away from it being big business, so might as well really start running them like businesses rather than trying to pretend that's not what they are.

Hell don't even require the students to go to school. Just treat them as university employees who can take classes for free if they want. Otherwise their purpose is to make the school money, and earn a minor league salary. Only at the big, BCS type schools that could break away and for this type of league though.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Pretty much all the SEC, Big X and PAC 12 teams and every team that makes it to the NCAA championship team should be funded through
1. Donors/Boosters/Alumuni
2. Ticket Sales.
3. The NBA/NFL (this is where their future talent comes from)

get rid of the NCAA rules governing players making money as well. That's what those guys who play in college are there to do. They're not there for school and to get an education (90% of em) they're to ball and get paid. Stop pretending they're "Student-Atheletes".
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Because the purpose of a university is knowledge creation, and that's not going to be profitable in every field. Some topics just have hardly any grant funding and research universities are really the only places that work is getting done.

I just don't by the parallel to sports. You can have gym classes, physical education majors etc. where students play sports and learn all that team work stuff and get all the physical fitness stuff for a fraction of the cost of having an actual team that has to travel around the region (and sometimes the country) playing games etc.[/QUOTE]


You see the purpose of a university as knowledge creation. Because that's what it pays you to do.

For me all it is, is just a means to an end. Just a place to get a piece of paper that validates my (perceived) intelligence. Show this piece of paper to employer. Employer gives me money.
That's all I need a university for.

And aren't most university graduates these days Business and Education majors? These are not people who are into "knowledge creation" either. I'm sure they're not adding anything of research back into the university.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']You see the purpose of a university as knowledge creation. Because that's what it pays you to do.

For me all it is, is just a means to an end. Just a place to get a piece of paper that validates my (perceived) intelligence. Show this piece of paper to employer. Employer gives me money.
That's all I need a university for.[/quote]
Isn't this the sentiment that needs to be changed? That maybe having a degree shouldn't be the be-all end-all minimum qualification for even entry level employment?

And aren't most university graduates these days Business and Education majors? These are not people who are into "knowledge creation" either. I'm sure they're not adding anything of research back into the university.
Click to expand...
You could say the same about any major, but it doesn't mean that there aren't people doing research. You DO need people to teach those subjects too.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']
And aren't most university graduates these days Business and Education majors?[/QUOTE]

Surprisingly no. A TON of people still major in liberal arts and yet have no plans to go to grad school. And that's why so many graduates can't find shit for jobs. Though, education is getting pretty competitive for jobs nowadays, depending on specialty.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']You see the purpose of a university as knowledge creation. Because that's what it pays you to do.[/quote]

It's what a research university pays ALL tenure track/tenured professors to do (with a few exceptions for places that have teaching only tenured positions--but those are very rare as it's cheaper to use adjuncts). We're all paid to generate new knowledge--more importantly publish it and ideally bring in grant money to fund it--and impart your wisdom on students. With the former being most valued and having by far most of the weight in tenure and promotion decisions.

It's not what I see it as, it's what the whole system was designed to do, and it operates explicitly around that goal.

For me all it is, is just a means to an end. Just a place to get a piece of paper that validates my (perceived) intelligence. Show this piece of paper to employer. Employer gives me money.
That's all I need a university for.
Click to expand...

Then, and I mean no disrespect (again we need to drop the stigma), you shouldn't go to a research university. You should be at a teaching college, community college or trade school where you can spend less money, learn what you need to, and still get a piece of paper to get you into jobs.

Again, the stigma is a real problem as employer's place to much premium on a 4-year degree and have a stigma of 2-year degrees, trade school certifications etc., and that drives people to research universities who really should be there. That needs to change.

Related to the above, the sports and party scene is another problem that attracts students to research universities who really shouldn't be there.

And aren't most university graduates these days Business and Education majors? These are not people who are into "knowledge creation" either. I'm sure they're not adding anything of research back into the university.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure abour enrollment size. I know where I did my grad school that Criminology had the most majors of any undergrad program in the university.

In any case profs in those areas--education and business--do research at research at research universities. All tenure track/tenured track professors (again with a few exceptions) at research universities are doing teaching and research with more focus on the latter.

For instance, people in the business school do research on the work place, business trends, marketing trends, management strategies etc. Education profs do research on what teaching methods work best, the validity of various tests and so forth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']

I'm not sure abour enrollment size. I know where I did my grad school that Criminology had the most majors of any undergrad program in the university. [/QUOTE]

At Ohio State, it was (is?) psychology. LOL.
 
Found this link that listed the top 10 most popular majors:

http://www.princetonreview.com/college/top-ten-majors.aspx

1. Business Administration and Management/Commerce
2. Psychology
3. Nursing
4. Biology/Biological Sciences
5. Education
6. English Language and Literature
7. Economics
8. Communications Studies/Speech Communication and Rhetoric
9. Political Science and Government
10. Computer and Information Sciences

But I also found this one which varies a bit (just has them in alphabetical order--main difference is Criminal Justice and Political Science make the list):

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/10/27/cb.what.major.pays/index.html

Biology
Business administration and management
Communications
Computer Science
Criminal Justice
Elementary Education
Nursing
Psychology
Political Science
 
Business Administration is a big one. Tons of people go for that degree simply to get a job in businesses. Where I work currently, any position of any value (and by value, I mean a measly salary) requires a bachelors degree. It should not cost someone $25,000-$40,000 (low-balling) to get the piece of paper to qualify for those nearly entry level positions. My problem is not with the degree program or that students go to college to learn, but that tuition has consistantly went up year after year even when no cuts were being made.
 
Even when no cuts are made their are things like energy bills going way up, regular cost of living raises for faculty and staff etc. Costs are always going up in every sector.

The tuition jumps in the past, from what I saw, where a good bit smaller than the recent ones with the big cuts.

But yes, you shouldn't have to get a degree for many entry level jobs. But that's not a flaw of the university systems. It's a flaw of society by requiring them for entry level jobs, and shunning community college/trade school etc. for other jobs that are a bit more specialized but still don't need 4-year degrees.

Well, to be honest, the university system isn't blameless. As it's turned more to big business, rather than non-profit knowledge creation centers, they've done their part to recruit people who just want a piece of paper to get a job to up enrollment and make more money for sure. So it's a flaw of the university system moving away from it's original purpose and becoming more profit driven.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Conjecture. You said in another thread how you consider the modern political dichotomy doesn't suit you. Yet every time you post you've shown that you're nothing more than a lapdog for ultra wealthy oligarchic interests - another sheep who doesn't fuck around with silly things like "facts," they just look at the world around them, oblivious to both their wealth of biases and the nonrandomness of what they see with their eyes (ethnocentricity entirely notwithstanding) and declare things are the way they are.

You're confirmatory bias made flesh and bone. You're as outside the simplified political spectrum as I am.

But hey, in response to your rigorous "at all the public colleges around here" laboratory analysis, here's some data for you, sweetheart:

tenure.jpg


Dept. of Education date, you fucking uneducated prick.

More information: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/teachertenure.htm
[/QUOTE]

"fucking uneducated prick"? Listen you pompous asshole, the argument being made is that good teachers are being fired and replaced with adjunct educators. First of all, your graph makes no distinction between people being fired, and those that retire, or those that leave voluntarily. It also makes no mention at all of overall number of teachers. According to the Census Bureau, in 1970, only about 20% of the population went to college, by 2010, it was about 55%. Forty percent of those who go to college do not graduate at all, and that's just an average, for many schools it's much higher. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/index.html

Now let's take my alma mater, Central Connecticut State University, for example. http://www.ccsu.edu/page.cfm?p=4571 the graduation rate within 6 years is about half. So not only do you have a much larger percentage of the population going to college today than they did 40 years ago, but a large percentage of them won't ever graduate, they may take a semester or twos worth of entry level classes and then quit. As a result, you have a large number of students taking classes that are far more likely to be taught by adjuncts than tenured professors, so as a result you have more adjunct professors. This is why you may have Biology 101 in a lecture hall with 75 students, but by the time you get to Bio 311 there's only maybe 15 people in the class. 100% of the school population will end up taking the basic level classes, but only a little more than half will take the advanced ones.
 
The lack of raw numbers don't change the fact that higher percentages of classes are being taught by adjuncts, full time non-tenure track faculty (and grad students though those aren't in the graph). In 1975 over 56% of classes were taught by tenured or tenure track faculty, by 2007 it was down to around 31%. And I read something the other day that at research universities only something like 17% of undergrad classes are taught by tenured/tenure track professors these days.

The reasons behind this trend don't change the fact that the trend is a negative for the scholarship mission of universities plain and simple. A big benefit of a research university is access to professors who are expert scholars in their fields.

Sure some may suck in the class room, but the same is true of adjuncts who also are seldom trained in teaching and just worked in the relevant field, or got a master's or Ph D in the field and couldn't land a tenure track job etc. Quality of teaching is dependent on the individual, not whether their tenure track, tenured or an adjunct.

But at least with tenured faculty at a research university you have people who are generally experts in some niche in their field and can share that expertise with you if you put in the effort. So even if they suck in lecturing etc. they have a lot of knowledge to impart if you ask questions, go to office hours etc.

Where as most adjuncts, in my experience, teach only from the textbook and their own anecdotal career experience for those who work/worked in the field, so you don't get that same benefit of having access to an expert scholar.

But, of course, that type of teaching is probably more suited to those posting here that the just care about getting a job and learning things that help them achieve that goal. But again that's why they should be in community colleges/trade schools where all the classes are oriented that way.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Even when no cuts are made their are things like energy bills going way up, regular cost of living raises for faculty and staff etc. Costs are always going up in every sector.

The tuition jumps in the past, from what I saw, where a good bit smaller than the recent ones with the big cuts.

But yes, you shouldn't have to get a degree for many entry level jobs. But that's not a flaw of the university systems. It's a flaw of society by requiring them for entry level jobs, and shunning community college/trade school etc. for other jobs that are a bit more specialized but still don't need 4-year degrees.

Well, to be honest, the university system isn't blameless. As it's turned more to big business, rather than non-profit knowledge creation centers, they've done their part to recruit people who just want a piece of paper to get a job to up enrollment and make more money for sure. So it's a flaw of the university system moving away from it's original purpose and becoming more profit driven.[/QUOTE]

For some reason I think you are suggesting that the majority of people who attend universities are in it solely for the knowledge and not the career opportunities. I don't think this is true, and although the universities are to blame for recruiting people who want career advancement, it is not a bad thing. What is wrong is that the prices of these programs in which students are flocking to in order to progress their careers are vastly inflated for what they are getting.
 
Oh I absolutely agree, but I don't think the lack of tenured teachers has anything to do with any sort of conspiracy to get rid of them all, it's just a function of the higher demand for entry level classes that tenured professors often don't (or won't) teach. In my undergrad career, I'd say probably 70 to 80% of 100 level courses (the basic stuff) were taught by adjuncts, but once I actually god into the meat and potatoes of the program I was in, it was more like 20%, maybe even less. I think I had one elective marketing class taught by an adjunct, but all the mandatory upper level business classes were being taught by full time tenured professors.
 
[quote name='Knoell']For some reason I think you are suggesting that the majority of people who attend universities are in it solely for the knowledge and not the career opportunities. I don't think this is true, and although the universities are to blame for recruiting people who want career advancement, it is not a bad thing. What is wrong is that the prices of these programs in which students are flocking to in order to progress their careers are vastly inflated for what they are getting.[/QUOTE]


Oh, I know the majority of students are their for career advancement. I'm just saying that shouldn't be the primary focus. The primary focus should be on learning and bettering yourself. Career advancement is the potential icing on the cake assuming you get a degree in a field with a decent job market.

As for costs, for some fields it may be inflated for what they get out of it in terms of starting salaries etc. But they're not inflated in terms of the costs of operating the university. State universities want to keep tuition down--at least for instate students. But things like energy costs have gone up a lot over the years, state budgets get slashed which means students shoulder more of the burden, athletic departments lose money and further tax the budgets.

I can assure the high costs aren't going to salaries. The only professors making big bucks are those who bring in a ton of research dollars. They get the big bucks as their paying a big chunk (and sometimes all or more) of their salary through the overhead the university skims off external funding. Overhead is around 50% at most universities these days. So, for example, if you have research project that has $300K in direct costs you have to get a grant for $450K to do it with the 50% overhead as the University gets 50 cents of every dollar spent in direct costs in overhead (aka indirect costs).

Otherwise, professors are making significantly less than they could make in the private sector in most fields. And the adjuncts and grad students teaching the majority of courses are severely underpaid. Where I've been it's been $3,500-4,000 per course for them.

So it's not a case of universities and faculty making money hand over fist from students. It's just that it costs a lot of money to run a decent university and tuition has to keep pace with these costs. It's up to students to not take out debt for degrees that won't help them land jobs. The rule of thumb of not taking out more debt than what you expect to make as your starting salary is a good one, even for students in it for the love of learning first and career enhancement etc. Going purely to learn with no regard to future salary is a luxury for those who can go without loans--be it from their parents paying for it or through scholarships etc.
 
$3,500-4,000 per class?

That's almost double what I made when I adjuncted as a grad student.

If people knew what the bulk of professors made, they'd go looking for the money elsewhere.

Actually, who am I kidding; facts never got in the way of a good ol' witch hunt.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Oh I absolutely agree, but I don't think the lack of tenured teachers has anything to do with any sort of conspiracy to get rid of them all, it's just a function of the higher demand for entry level classes that tenured professors often don't (or won't) teach. [/quote]

That's not really true though in my experience.

First, what you're describing isn't a new trend. Graduation rates have been around 50% of the starting freshman class for decades. There's always been more students in entry level classes. Both because there are more freshman as people haven't flunked out yet, and those classes tend to be available for anyone to take as electives--while the upper level courses are generally limited to majors only. So there's no trend in increased demand for lower level courses other than the fact that university enrollments have increased and freshman classes are larger than ever--but it has nothing to do with more people flunking out than in the past etc.

Also, from what I've seen the past couple of years, there has been a trend of "encouraging retirement" of tenured professors and not opening a position to replace them with a younger tenured professor in the short term, but just having adjuncts and grad students make up the lost credit hours by teaching more sections. Hopefully those won't be permanent trends and those tenured positions do come back and get filled--but only time will tell on that.

In any case, even if the drop in % is for the reasons you note, it's a bad thing. As enrollments increased etc. universities should have been expanding the number of tenure track faculty in popular majors to keep pace. Not farming out greater and greater percentages of classes to adjuncts and grad students.

In my undergrad career, I'd say probably 70 to 80% of 100 level courses (the basic stuff) were taught by adjuncts, but once I actually god into the meat and potatoes of the program I was in, it was more like 20%, maybe even less. I think I had one elective marketing class taught by an adjunct, but all the mandatory upper level business classes were being taught by full time tenured professors.
Click to expand...

As to this point, it's mostly a money reason why most low level classes are taught by adjuncts. They're larger classes for the reasons I outlined above, and it's a lot of profit to have say a 300 student course taught by an adjunct getting paid maybe $4k to teach it. Vs. making it one of the 4 or so courses a year higher paid tenured professors teach.

Plus it's also a matter of capability. You don't need a Ph D or to be an expert scholar to do an adequate job of teaching the basic entry level courses. So those courses go to adjuncts and grad students, while the more advanced undergrad classes (and all grad classes most places) are left for the tenured/tenure track faculty.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']$3,500-4,000 per class?

That's almost double what I made when I adjuncted as a grad student.[/quote]

Really? I got around $3,500 for the one summer class I taught in grad school. And that's about what we pay adjuncts and students where I'm at now from what I understand.

Did you teach in your department or at some smaller college? Some of my classmates adjuncted at smaller colleges in the area, and those did pay more like $2,000-2,500K. Pay is always higher at research universities than smaller colleges for the most part.

If people knew what the bulk of professors made, they'd go looking for the money elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Yep. Salaries are low relative to the private sector even in good research universities. And their even worse in smaller teaching universities etc.

People just focus on the big salaries of university presidents and the top 1% of professors etc. without understanding that those are the exceptions and that those people are bringing tons of money into the university in many cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top