Another Article about the Education Bubble

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Vaniver » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:43 pm UTC

Source.

What could possibly go wrong when the government establishes something as a sacred cow and guarantees that it won't be risky?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:44 pm UTC

I did hear that the "For Profit" Schools tend to have a disproportionate share of these failing students. At least when it comes to for-profit schools (the major change in the education system in the last 10 years...) The gears are already turning on the issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00015.html

So really, the question is, what happens when something becomes a sacred cow, and then a huge industry starts up, accepting students who clearly can't afford the education under the excuse "We're helping out people who never could have gotten an education before" ?? Then, the Government backs the loans under some sort of guarantee and those loans are cut up and sold all over the market?

No, seriously. I think I've seen this story before. Fortunately, at least according to this:
http://www.economywatch.com/finance/hig ... ities.html

The market has pulled back from Slabs. So the market sees this coming already.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Numquam
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:13 am UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Numquam » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:53 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:Source.

What could possibly go wrong when the government establishes something as a sacred cow and guarantees that it won't be risky?


Of course, the article cites the commercialization of college as the problem, but carry on making your anti-government one liners.
admiror, o internet, te non cecidisse (ruinis)
qui tot scriptorum taedia sustineas

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:01 pm UTC

Numquam wrote:
Vaniver wrote:Source.

What could possibly go wrong when the government establishes something as a sacred cow and guarantees that it won't be risky?


Of course, the article cites the commercialization of college as the problem, but carry on making your anti-government one liners.


Commercialization of College could not have happened at this rate if the recruiters weren't allowed to get commissions on the number of students they accepted. The US Government also backs the student loans that these for-profit colleges are taking advantage of. There are a number of laws and reforms that need to take place to make this industry safe.

Either way, the US Government (and its citizens) have a soft spot for education, but we don't have the laws or regulations we need in place to prevent for-profit schools from gaming the system.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:40 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The US Government also backs the student loans that these for-profit colleges are taking advantage of.

In addition, while an individual may declare bankruptcy and default on her home loan and credit card debt, she will still be forced to pay back her student loans. This government policy makes potential students attractive targets for lenders.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Griffin » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:39 pm UTC

Surprise, surprise - when you have a culture convinced something is "worth any cost", people tend to end up overpaying for it in a non-sustainable way.

And the government, actually serving in this capacity to propel forward the will of the people, insured we get exactly what we want, just like it gave us all what we wanted with the real estate crash.

Ah well.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Jahoclave » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:52 pm UTC

What's worse is the line in there about the increase in business majors being used as a justification of utility based thinking; especially, when you couple it with the Chronicle of Higher Ed article that just came out about how business majors are the least educated and do the worst, even on their own tests. Wonder why employers don't value the degree, because the people with one aren't getting an education. They're just funneled through the easy A machine without ever learning critical abilities that employers would actually want.

Or, you know, we could actual put that money towards instruction instead of the football team. That'd be nice.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Vaniver » Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:25 pm UTC

Numquam wrote:Of course, the article cites the commercialization of college as the problem, but carry on making your anti-government one liners.
I suppose you learned that sort of critical thinking in college?

Jahoclave wrote:Or, you know, we could actual put that money towards instruction instead of the football team. That'd be nice.
The football team tends to be the highest-value students for the university, though; they make money while they're there, and once they leave they're more likely to get finance / management jobs, do well, and feel enough loyalty to the alma mater to donate money.

The real issue is that higher education doesn't know what it is. Right now it's often just a bland certificate of smartishness, that exists because of institutional cover-your-ass pressures. The hiring policies of massive companies are essentially "don't hire anyone obviously bad," and if their core competence isn't judging candidate quality it's sensible to outsource it. This move is a strong efficiency gain, because one rating agency can rate many candidates simultaneously and each of those candidates can use the same rating at many companies.

But what metric do you use for candidates? What incentives do the rating agencies have?

If we demystify colleges, we can chop away the fat and leave the meat. Harvard is a hedge fund that runs the most prestigious dating agency in the world, and incidentally employs famous scientists to do research. (Stanford is mostly the same, except it's a bit better for meeting cofounders.) Why put people together for 4 years if that's your goal? (4 years may be the optimal amount of time, but I suspect not.)

For other colleges, are they giving people a professional degree? (Engineering comes to mind.) Then it may be a waste of time and money to force them to take classes in upper class taste (but everyone should like Shakespeare, right?). Are they giving people a way to prolong adolescence and have a stamp of smartishness? (You can fill this in yourself.) First, we should think long and hard about whether or not we want people to prolong their adolescence.* Assuming we don't, there are many ways to have a stamp of smartishness while working. Imagine a selective book club that measured its members and publicly posted the results (or just ejected people who didn't maintain some level of quality). Instead of seeing that a potential receptionist has a degree in English, I can call up the head of their book club and get a character reference and measure of their reading comprehension / insight. The person could start working immediately, jumping up jobs as they prove themselves and gain experience.

A designer knows they have achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but nothing left to take away. -- Antoine de Saint-Exbury

Do we really need people to be students full-time? Do we really need a third of the population to not start working until they're 22? Do we really need people to pay colleges for the privilege of working for free for another company (i.e. an unpaid internship for credit)?

*This has long been a goal of the labor movement, since a decline in the supply of labor means an increase in the price. But for most people, the sooner you start working, the better off you are. Minimum wage laws and child labor laws both exist not to protect the poor or children, but people whose wages they would reduce. One of the most prevalent factors among Fortune 500 CEOs is that they had jobs as teenagers.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Jessica » Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:49 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:*This has long been a goal of the labor movement, since a decline in the supply of labor means an increase in the price. But for most people, the sooner you start working, the better off you are. Minimum wage laws and child labor laws both exist not to protect the poor or children, but people whose wages they would reduce. One of the most prevalent factors among Fortune 500 CEOs is that they had jobs as teenagers.
*blink*
Child labour laws exist to give children a chance to have an education. Without laws like that, those who can't afford to not have children working will force their children to work, instead of getting an education and possibly getting out of that place. The only reason to remove child labour laws is to increase the divide between the haves and the have-nots.

Yes, CEOs worked as teens. That isn't a reason to remove child labour laws. CEOs are the kinds of people who have a drive to succeed, and thus work, whether or not child labour laws exist. People aren't going to become CEOs more if you remove child labour laws. I know you didn't say that, but that's the implication of your statement.

Sorry... I know you and I don't see eye to eye. I know you have some really fucked up views in my opinion, but... really that's not cool.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Garm » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:06 pm UTC

There's a relationship between industry and the expectations of their workers. Around 1900, primary and secondary schools changed from being places for kids to become model citizens to being places where kids became model workers. We went through some cultural shifts, including the regulation of child labor, and as technology became more important, so did focused education. Colleges, and for-profit colleges in particular, are responding to market forces. Having a B.A. almost doubles your income if you're a man and does double it if you're a woman (which is one of the reasons why more women are going to college than men). You defer your revenue in order to get more. College fees are way out of control and it'd be nice to bring them down but as long as people pay for them...

Your example of Fortune 500 CEOs working as teens is totally specious. There are a lot of younger guys who head up companies now. Most of these dudes either were in college (look at Zuckerberg) or futzed around with computers instead of going to school at all. Will this work for everyone? Sure... In Utopia.

Oh, source for the income numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Dark567 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:20 pm UTC

Garm wrote: Having a B.A. almost doubles your income if you're a man and does double it if you're a woman (which is one of the reasons why more women are going to college than men).
True. Although I think taking the average BA is oversimplified. There seems to be a lot of tilt depending on what you study. Getting an engineering degree will give you almost 2.5x earnings, while a Social Work only does marginally better than not having a degree at all(or you could get a BA in Theology, which actually ends up with a lower salary then just having a HS diploma). Telling people getting a BA is going to double their salary is a little deceptive if its not the right one.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Aetius » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:40 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Having a B.A. almost doubles your income if you're a man and does double it if you're a woman (which is one of the reasons why more women are going to college than men). You defer your revenue in order to get more. College fees are way out of control and it'd be nice to bring them down but as long as people pay for them...


Yes, but is it the BA that doubles your income, or being the kind of person who would get a BA?

kadak
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:54 pm UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby kadak » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:55 pm UTC

Garm wrote: Having a B.A. almost doubles your income if you're a man and does double it if you're a woman (which is one of the reasons why more women are going to college than men). You defer your revenue in order to get more. College fees are way out of control and it'd be nice to bring them down but as long as people pay for them...

Your example of Fortune 500 CEOs working as teens is totally specious. There are a lot of younger guys who head up companies now. Most of these dudes either were in college (look at Zuckerberg) or futzed around with computers instead of going to school at all. Will this work for everyone? Sure... In Utopia.

Oh, source for the income numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States


That kind of statistics doesn't seem very relevant to me, income has to do with lots of things other than having a degree, we all know there are people with masters degrees working minimum wage and the richest man in the world is a dropout.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Jessica » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:07 pm UTC

kadak wrote:
Garm wrote: Having a B.A. almost doubles your income if you're a man and does double it if you're a woman (which is one of the reasons why more women are going to college than men). You defer your revenue in order to get more. College fees are way out of control and it'd be nice to bring them down but as long as people pay for them...

Your example of Fortune 500 CEOs working as teens is totally specious. There are a lot of younger guys who head up companies now. Most of these dudes either were in college (look at Zuckerberg) or futzed around with computers instead of going to school at all. Will this work for everyone? Sure... In Utopia.

Oh, source for the income numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educationa ... ted_States
That kind of statistics doesn't seem very relevant to me, income has to do with lots of things other than having a degree, we all know there are people with masters degrees working minimum wage and the richest man in the world is a dropout.
That's why we look at overall averages, not individual cases when trying to make assessments. Overall, there is a correlation between degrees and greater income, and less unemployment.

Does that mean that the piece of paper gives people more money on it's own? No. Does that mean that getting any degree make you money? No. It does mean that those who do get degrees have a greater chance at a higher income. It means your ability to make money, and your options to make money increase, and your pay grade can often go higher.

And yes, there are differences between degrees, in the same way there is a difference between which high school you go to and graduate from. Doesn't mean that people who drop out of high school generally earn more than people who complete high school.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
KestrelLowing
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:57 pm UTC
Location: Michigan

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby KestrelLowing » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:34 pm UTC

It seems to me that the biggest problem with this entire thing is that no one knows anything about finances! This could be somewhat prevented if someone would just require a finance class in high school - preferable junior year when the majority are thinking about college. The problem is students and their parents don't realize that the majors they choose is basically why they can't pay off the debt.

If everyone was told a general list of what majors actually made out with a college education, especially to those students who do not have a specific career in mind, maybe that would help.

I personally think that if you don't have a job in mind or have a job in mind that doesn't really need a degree (jobs that need degrees: STEM fields, teaching, health, probably others I can't think of) you should not go to college if you cannot afford it independently or with scholarships.

Even the majority of business degrees are pretty useless when it comes down to it. You don't learn anything you can't easily learn on-the-job or from a couple classes. The thing that business people really need is experiance - and that doesn't come from college.

That's not to say that humanities should be abolished, but rather that they should be funded independently or through scholarships. This would mean that the humanities majors would either be filthy rich or actually really want to be there and qualified (sadly, I can't think of a way to filter out the filthy rich who just want to party) and that would probably make the entire program of higher quality, giving back prestige to an English or maybe even gender studies degree. *gasp*

What I'd really like to see happen is for something like an apprentice program to be created. It would be a bit like todays internships, but extended and with the expectation that this is all the education. For many jobs, I bet this would be sufficient for an entry level job. The majority of white collar jobs I've come across (secretary, purchasing, etc.) don't need college, just a somewhat intelligent individual.

Some jobs still need more training than that, such as science and engineering jobs. Those jobs already pay off student loans in general, so that shouldn't be a problem.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Jahoclave » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:38 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Numquam wrote:Of course, the article cites the commercialization of college as the problem, but carry on making your anti-government one liners.
I suppose you learned that sort of critical thinking in college?

Jahoclave wrote:Or, you know, we could actual put that money towards instruction instead of the football team. That'd be nice.
The football team tends to be the highest-value students for the university, though; they make money while they're there, and once they leave they're more likely to get finance / management jobs, do well, and feel enough loyalty to the alma mater to donate money.

The real issue is that higher education doesn't know what it is. Right now it's often just a bland certificate of smartishness, that exists because of institutional cover-your-ass pressures. The hiring policies of massive companies are essentially "don't hire anyone obviously bad," and if their core competence isn't judging candidate quality it's sensible to outsource it. This move is a strong efficiency gain, because one rating agency can rate many candidates simultaneously and each of those candidates can use the same rating at many companies.

But what metric do you use for candidates? What incentives do the rating agencies have?

If we demystify colleges, we can chop away the fat and leave the meat. Harvard is a hedge fund that runs the most prestigious dating agency in the world, and incidentally employs famous scientists to do research. (Stanford is mostly the same, except it's a bit better for meeting cofounders.) Why put people together for 4 years if that's your goal? (4 years may be the optimal amount of time, but I suspect not.)

For other colleges, are they giving people a professional degree? (Engineering comes to mind.) Then it may be a waste of time and money to force them to take classes in upper class taste (but everyone should like Shakespeare, right?). Are they giving people a way to prolong adolescence and have a stamp of smartishness? (You can fill this in yourself.) First, we should think long and hard about whether or not we want people to prolong their adolescence.* Assuming we don't, there are many ways to have a stamp of smartishness while working. Imagine a selective book club that measured its members and publicly posted the results (or just ejected people who didn't maintain some level of quality). Instead of seeing that a potential receptionist has a degree in English, I can call up the head of their book club and get a character reference and measure of their reading comprehension / insight. The person could start working immediately, jumping up jobs as they prove themselves and gain experience.

A designer knows they have achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but nothing left to take away. -- Antoine de Saint-Exbury

Do we really need people to be students full-time? Do we really need a third of the population to not start working until they're 22? Do we really need people to pay colleges for the privilege of working for free for another company (i.e. an unpaid internship for credit)?

*This has long been a goal of the labor movement, since a decline in the supply of labor means an increase in the price. But for most people, the sooner you start working, the better off you are. Minimum wage laws and child labor laws both exist not to protect the poor or children, but people whose wages they would reduce. One of the most prevalent factors among Fortune 500 CEOs is that they had jobs as teenagers.


Or we could recognize that the humanities are not studying shakespeare for the hell of it. They're often the area where you develop critical assessment and writing skills. There's also critical awareness of the self and society. You know, the stuff where you realize that the world extends beyond your small patch of suburbia. You're still under a slight problem in that you can't break out of your utility based world view, which is exactly the problem to your approach to academia. Interestingly enough, that's something the humanities help get people past. I'm sorry that our field tends to produce people who think that raping the planet for profit shouldn't be the prime directive of society.

Quite frankly we should cut the business degree before the humanities. At least the humanities actually show results in their majors learning things.

I'm sorry, but if the end result of universities is to produce labor for capitalist, we've fucked up big time.

And I think there's some missing of the point that it's not the academic instruction side that's even the problem with the cost, it's that Universities are being treated like investment opportunities by financial firms instead of as educational facilities that they're supposed to be. They increased prices aren't a result of educational advancement, but rather by corporatist trying to make money. Ergo, you're not paying for an education, but rather paying salaries of corporate managers whose goals are antithetical to education.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:45 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:The football team tends to be the highest-value students for the university, though; they make money while they're there
[citation needed] for this claim applied to any school that isn't in a major conference. Because, sure, my school probably came out ahead money-wise with their football team. But I have a harder time believing that of smaller schools or even equal-sized schools that just don't have as good a football team.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Jahoclave » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:50 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Vaniver wrote:The football team tends to be the highest-value students for the university, though; they make money while they're there
[citation needed] for this claim applied to any school that isn't in a major conference. Because, sure, my school probably came out ahead money-wise with their football team. But I have a harder time believing that of smaller schools or even equal-sized schools that just don't have as good a football team.

If people could access the New York Times archives, I think somewhere around October/November there was a large article on how all but the top teams are costing their schools a significant amount of money, in that every student could be paying, on average, 2000 dollars less a year for their education.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Dark567 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:52 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Vaniver wrote:The football team tends to be the highest-value students for the university, though; they make money while they're there
[citation needed] for this claim applied to any school that isn't in a major conference. Because, sure, my school probably came out ahead money-wise with their football team. But I have a harder time believing that of smaller schools or even equal-sized schools that just don't have as good a football team.
But isn't that why they have divisions that limit expenditures? Smaller D-2 and D-3 schools have a cap on the amount they can spend.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby JBJ » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:58 pm UTC

Just for perspective, these are all the Division 1-A schools and their 2007-2008 revenue.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports ... l-you.html
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

User avatar
Box Boy
WINNING
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Box Boy » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:31 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Vaniver wrote:The football team tends to be the highest-value students for the university, though; they make money while they're there
[citation needed] for this claim applied to any school that isn't in a major conference. Because, sure, my school probably came out ahead money-wise with their football team. But I have a harder time believing that of smaller schools or even equal-sized schools that just don't have as good a football team.
But isn't that why they have divisions that limit expenditures? Smaller D-2 and D-3 schools have a cap on the amount they can spend.
That's still a lot of money students are spending to support what is essentially a pissing contest between universities, an activity they most likely will never participate in and a select few good enough at it that the university charges them less for playing it for the sake of their pissing contest and aids them to get a job more than most* others, in a field which benefits humanity in no way major way beyond entertainment.



*(talent scouts keep an eye on university players and are encouraged, right?)
Signatures are for chumps.

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby jakovasaur » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:36 pm UTC

There's always the Flutie Effect to consider. The idea is that when a school makes significant strides in high-profile athletics, they then see a large increase in the number of applicants. This would then allow them to raise their academic standards, get more funding, etc. I'm not sure how much evidence there is that this actually happens, but if it does, then that seems like a pretty good reason for the lesser athletic programs to keep pumping money into the AD. All you need is one good year, and then maybe you're on your way to a whole new echelon of university.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Dark567 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:49 pm UTC

Box Boy wrote:*(talent scouts keep an eye on university players and are encouraged, right?)

I am not really sure what you mean by this? Yeah, talent scouts definitely do and encourage it. The vast majority of college athletes don't go to the pros though, even of the Football players. So I don't really think thats the case the University helps them get a job better than anyone else.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Zcorp » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:09 pm UTC

jakovasaur wrote:There's always the Flutie Effect to consider. The idea is that when a school makes significant strides in high-profile athletics, they then see a large increase in the number of applicants. This would then allow them to raise their academic standards, get more funding, etc. I'm not sure how much evidence there is that this actually happens, but if it does, then that seems like a pretty good reason for the lesser athletic programs to keep pumping money into the AD. All you need is one good year, and then maybe you're on your way to a whole new echelon of university.


That happens with anything popular and successful, change the cultural perceptions to value science and you will get more media attention on projects in schools and the successful ones will have a higher number of applicants.

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby jakovasaur » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:13 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:
jakovasaur wrote:There's always the Flutie Effect to consider. The idea is that when a school makes significant strides in high-profile athletics, they then see a large increase in the number of applicants. This would then allow them to raise their academic standards, get more funding, etc. I'm not sure how much evidence there is that this actually happens, but if it does, then that seems like a pretty good reason for the lesser athletic programs to keep pumping money into the AD. All you need is one good year, and then maybe you're on your way to a whole new echelon of university.


That happens with anything popular and successful, change the cultural perceptions to value science and you will get more media attention on projects in schools and the successful ones will have a higher number of applicants.

If you're saying that we should try to get people to value all-star scientists as much as elite athletes, I think you're living in fantasy land.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Dauric » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:16 pm UTC

jakovasaur wrote:
Zcorp wrote:
jakovasaur wrote:There's always the Flutie Effect to consider. The idea is that when a school makes significant strides in high-profile athletics, they then see a large increase in the number of applicants. This would then allow them to raise their academic standards, get more funding, etc. I'm not sure how much evidence there is that this actually happens, but if it does, then that seems like a pretty good reason for the lesser athletic programs to keep pumping money into the AD. All you need is one good year, and then maybe you're on your way to a whole new echelon of university.


That happens with anything popular and successful, change the cultural perceptions to value science and you will get more media attention on projects in schools and the successful ones will have a higher number of applicants.

If you're saying that we should try to get people to value all-star scientists as much as elite athletes, I think you're living in fantasy land.

It's a nice fantasy-land though. It has flying cars.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Box Boy
WINNING
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Box Boy » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:26 pm UTC

jakovasaur wrote:If you're saying that we should try to get people to value all-star scientists as much as elite athletes, I think you're living in fantasy land.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Dark567 wrote:I am not really sure what you mean by this? Yeah, talent scouts definitely do and encourage it. The vast majority of college athletes don't go to the pros though, even of the Football players. So I don't really think thats the case the University helps them get a job better than anyone else.
I was asking if colleges encourage Talent Scouts to come to games to check out their top athletes because it looks better for the university. And, yeah, I'd imagine that they'd aid Athletes more than, say, engineering students and the like, because the former is more likely to get it famous compared to the latter, but, admittedly, I don't have statistics for every college on this, so I can't offer any solid evidence beyond conjecture.
jakovasaur wrote:There's always the Flutie Effect to consider. The idea is that when a school makes significant strides in high-profile athletics, they then see a large increase in the number of applicants. This would then allow them to raise their academic standards, get more funding, etc. I'm not sure how much evidence there is that this actually happens, but if it does, then that seems like a pretty good reason for the lesser athletic programs to keep pumping money into the AD. All you need is one good year, and then maybe you're on your way to a whole new echelon of university.
And I think it's a goddamn disgrace that people would decide their third level education based on who won big last year, and that having good athletes gains preferential treatment for a university monetarily rather than measuring it by it's ability to educate it's students and offer solid scholarship programs to those who are in need of it and have the most potential that would be wasted without it, it's need of the money to continue functioning, how important it is as a source of education to the local area, <insert-other-good-reasons-to-give-a-place-a-reward-for-it's-performance-or-aid-to-help-it-run-here>.
Signatures are for chumps.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Jahoclave » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:37 pm UTC

These revenues include generated revenue (such as proceeds from ticket sales and sponsorships) and allocated revenue (such as tuition waivers, money from student fees and direct institutional support.)


Also, just having more applicants doesn't mean anything good for the university. That extra revenue (assuming their actually is for the school) isn't being funneled towards instructional costs. And unless you have a place for those students and that the increase in university size allows the university to increase its academic profile, that effect hasn't done them shit. If all they did was produce more business majors, well, eh.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Zcorp » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:09 pm UTC

jakovasaur wrote:
Zcorp wrote:That happens with anything popular and successful, change the cultural perceptions to value science and you will get more media attention on projects in schools and the successful ones will have a higher number of applicants.

If you're saying that we should try to get people to value all-star scientists as much as elite athletes, I think you're living in fantasy land.

I think I said 'That happens anything popular and successful' and then used science as an example.

Zcorp wrote:That happens with anything popular and successful

Yup.

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby jakovasaur » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:12 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:
jakovasaur wrote:
Zcorp wrote:That happens with anything popular and successful, change the cultural perceptions to value science and you will get more media attention on projects in schools and the successful ones will have a higher number of applicants.

If you're saying that we should try to get people to value all-star scientists as much as elite athletes, I think you're living in fantasy land.

I think I said 'That happens anything popular and successful' and then used science as an example.

Zcorp wrote:That happens with anything popular and successful

Yup.

I guess I misunderstood you, because I still don't get what you're saying.

3pinner
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:07 pm UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby 3pinner » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:31 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:If people could access the New York Times archives, I think somewhere around October/November there was a large article on how all but the top teams are costing their schools a significant amount of money, in that every student could be paying, on average, 2000 dollars less a year for their education.

That is not true

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/collegesports/2010103078_ncaa21.html
Spoiler:
Of the 119 FBS football teams, 68 (57.1 percent) finished the year in the black.

Of the 119 FBS schools playing men's basketball, 67 teams made a profit. One of those same 119 schools made money in women's basketball in 2008.

FBS football teams recorded a median net profit of $1.95 million. Men's basketball at the same schools produced a median profit of $518,000. No other sport at the FBS schools, measured by median values, showed a program in the black

http://articles.courant.com/2010-07-17/sports/hc-uconn-equity-study-hathaway-0718-20100717_1_uconn-officials-football-program-uconn-athletic-director
"The report showed UConn was one of five BCS football programs that failed to make a profit during the 2008-09 academic year"

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-05-16-financial-study_N.htm

If you wanted to talk about sports that are financial drains on the general funds of schools, football was a very poor choice. Women's basketball, for one, would be a much better choice.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:06 am UTC

BTW: this PBS Frontline report is some damn good journalism.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... einc/view/

I highly recommend that everyone who's even remotely interested in this thread to watch it over. Its long, but very very well worth it.

Another consideration: its not a "Bubble" unless investors are flocking like mad to this industry.

Apollo Group is one of the largest groups:
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:APOL

Its stock price seems to be on the fall recently, perhaps investors are already pulling out of this?

Looking at some of the agencies who offer those Bonds...

https://www1.salliemae.com/about/invest ... 2011-1.htm

The most recent issuance of Sallie Mae bonds include a set of B rated Bonds (Speculative with risk of default), but the majority are definitely A rated Bonds. Actually, all of the money is in a single bond. Its just that class A1 is paid first, A2 is paid second, and B is paid last. These bonds are packaged with many many students, and its very unlikely that they'll all default at the same time, right? :cry:

EDIT: I don't know what the price of these bonds are, nor their rating.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:02 am UTC

Jessica wrote:*blink*
Child labour laws exist to give children a chance to have an education. Without laws like that, those who can't afford to not have children working will force their children to work, instead of getting an education and possibly getting out of that place.
This is a factual question about history. Child labor has generally been banned before compulsory education has been enacted, and in the US, for example, it was not banned nationwide until the Great Depression, when children and adults were competing at similar wages and the problem of unemployment could be "solved" by forcibly removing people from the labor force.

One rationalization is that the children are better off with an education, but it's obvious that education has diminishing returns and at some point people are better off ending their education and beginning to work. Whether that point is at 8 or 28 depends on the person, but it's hard to argue that the level set by the government is correct for everyone. (If it were, would we have to arrest people for failing to attend a service provided without direct cost?)

It also seems to me that it is unlikely the government has an individual's interest closer to heart than they do or their parents do. If the law's primary purpose is to protect children from harsh working environments, why is it still easier to employ them doing manual labor on farms? Surely hiring a 14 year old to do Excel work should be more permissible than hiring them to pick crops.

Jessica wrote:The only reason to remove child labour laws is to increase the divide between the haves and the have-nots.
How does depriving someone of job experience and years of their life make them more of a have?

Children still labor. The question is just "at what?" and "for what?". Instead of learning teamwork on the job, they might learn teamwork on the athletic field. Instead of earning money for a trip through wages, they might sell candy, cookies, or magazines. They are almost always uncompensated, though, or compensated in rather inefficient ways. If someone's family is having trouble paying their electric bill every month, are they better served by new equipment for their high school band or cash they can send to the utility company? If they have skills that are more valuable than sales or carwashing, why prevent them from selling those skills?

Removing people's options rarely helps them. If the issue is that people have high returns to education but don't have the capital to invest in themselves, then the best response is not to ban them from working but provide them education and living expense subsidies. But it's a rather good idea to make sure they actually have high returns to education.

Jahoclave wrote:They're often the area where you develop critical assessment and writing skills.
You're thinking of Philosophy, which is a valuable degree, despite the jokes. (Though that may just be because it signals intelligence rather than the courses adding value, but those things are rather hard to pull apart with education.)

Jahoclave wrote:You're still under a slight problem in that you can't break out of your utility based world view, which is exactly the problem to your approach to academia. Interestingly enough, that's something the humanities help get people past. I'm sorry that our field tends to produce people who think that raping the planet for profit shouldn't be the prime directive of society.
I've voluntarily performed Shakespeare and when I look to my left I see about a hundred novels on my bookshelf. The bookshelf next to it, though, has about a hundred works of physics, math, biology, economics, and history. As far as I can tell, my interests are balanced. I am just unafraid of applying mathematical reasoning to all parts of life, be it pentameter, pendula, or priorities.

For example, raping the planet is rarely profitable. Most business students don't even go into extractive industries. What is profitable is giving other people what they want. While I sympathize with the person who wants to deepen their appreciation of literature or music- and there is much there to be appreciated- I do not sympathize with the person thinks that deepening their appreciation for something should be the foundation of a career simply because they appreciate it, or the person who thinks the best time and way to deepen that appreciation is a full-time immersion program during their youth.

Jahoclave wrote:Quite frankly we should cut the business degree before the humanities. At least the humanities actually show results in their majors learning things.
I agree that business degrees are highly overvalued (particularly MBAs, which have been shown to be uncorrelated with any sort of business success). I suspect that humanities degrees are also overvalued, though (at least, that appears to be the opinion of many humanities graduates).
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:46 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Jessica wrote:*blink*
Child labour laws exist to give children a chance to have an education. Without laws like that, those who can't afford to not have children working will force their children to work, instead of getting an education and possibly getting out of that place.
This is a factual question about history. Child labor has generally been banned before compulsory education has been enacted, and in the US, for example, it was not banned nationwide until the Great Depression, when children and adults were competing at similar wages and the problem of unemployment could be "solved" by forcibly removing people from the labor force.

I don't think this is something you can actually prove. There were other concerns voiced at the time (like stunted growth resulting from mining), so I don't think you have any basis to claim that any and all forms of restrictions on the labor force are always a direct result of those looking to constrain the labor supply. There were plenty of people who advocated labor laws purely for health reasons. Also, your claim that the laws predated the enactment of public schools seems totally specious. Schooling was mandatory in the majority of states in 1900, federal labor laws concerning children were first established in 1916 (which, you might note, was well before the Great Depression).

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Jahoclave » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:55 am UTC

Jahoclave wrote:They're often the area where you develop critical assessment and writing skills.
You're thinking of Philosophy, which is a valuable degree, despite the jokes. (Though that may just be because it signals intelligence rather than the courses adding value, but those things are rather hard to pull apart with education.)

I'm really guessing you have no idea about what the humanities actually do.

Jahoclave wrote:You're still under a slight problem in that you can't break out of your utility based world view, which is exactly the problem to your approach to academia. Interestingly enough, that's something the humanities help get people past. I'm sorry that our field tends to produce people who think that raping the planet for profit shouldn't be the prime directive of society.
I've voluntarily performed Shakespeare and when I look to my left I see about a hundred novels on my bookshelf. The bookshelf next to it, though, has about a hundred works of physics, math, biology, economics, and history. As far as I can tell, my interests are balanced. I am just unafraid of applying mathematical reasoning to all parts of life, be it pentameter, pendula, or priorities.

That doesn't preclude the fact that you operate on a utility based world view that is quite awful in most regards.

For example, raping the planet is rarely profitable. Most business students don't even go into extractive industries. What is profitable is giving other people what they want. While I sympathize with the person who wants to deepen their appreciation of literature or music- and there is much there to be appreciated- I do not sympathize with the person thinks that deepening their appreciation for something should be the foundation of a career simply because they appreciate it, or the person who thinks the best time and way to deepen that appreciation is a full-time immersion program during their youth.

And I continue to assume you have no idea what a humanities degree actually entails.

Jahoclave wrote:Quite frankly we should cut the business degree before the humanities. At least the humanities actually show results in their majors learning things.
I agree that business degrees are highly overvalued (particularly MBAs, which have been shown to be uncorrelated with any sort of business success). I suspect that humanities degrees are also overvalued, though (at least, that appears to be the opinion of many humanities graduates).
[/quote]Well, I'm fairly certain that your lack of understanding of what the humanities degree actual entails, means that your judgment there will be regarded with much esteem... The fact of the matter is, humanities degrees do actually demonstrate value added education, as do science, and fields traditionally associated with university studies. Business, however, fails, even on its own tests.

Though, part of your problem still stems from your adherence to viewing everything as utility value based. Not everything need produce value for capitalist exploitation.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Zamfir » Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:39 pm UTC

Well, I'm fairly certain that your lack of understanding of what the humanities degree actual entails, means that your judgment there will be regarded with much esteem... The fact of the matter is, humanities degrees do actually demonstrate value added education, as do science, and fields traditionally associated with university studies. Business, however, fails, even on its own tests.

Though, part of your problem still stems from your adherence to viewing everything as utility value based. Not everything need produce value for capitalist exploitation.

I am not quite sure what you are saying here. Education of course exploits people and resources too, in a fairly similar way as more capitalistic organizations.

It's perfectly fine if that doesn't result in the production of directly tradable value. But you still need some justification for that exploitation, and any such justification entails unavoidably a comparison between the non-monetary benefits and the required monetary expense.

That comparison is of course not the only relevant dimension of education and its beenfits. But it is a very important dimension in any discussion about the proper amount of education, for individuals or for society. When Vaniver claims some education is not worth the cost and you say it is, it seems to me that you are still unavoidably translating to a "utility based world view", you're just making a different translation and drawing different conclusions.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:16 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:Also, your claim that the laws predated the enactment of public schools seems totally specious. Schooling was mandatory in the majority of states in 1900, federal labor laws concerning children were first established in 1916 (which, you might note, was well before the Great Depression).
There are other countries besides the United States. I was thinking of the United Kingdom in particular, where the Factory Act was passed in 1802 and the Elementary Education Act was passed in 1870.

Jahoclave wrote:I'm really guessing you have no idea about what the humanities actually do.
I am not interested in what the humanities say they do. I am interested in what actually results, which is often better measured from the outside than the inside. I am interested in identifying the value, and delivering just that, in the most efficient manner.

If it turns out that getting a degree in the humanities is essentially a 4-year vacation, how should that change our behavior? Should we still encourage people to borrow money to do it? Note that pretty much any article about how you can still make money with a humanities degree barely has its content changed if you replace "humanities degree" with "high school diploma" or "year-long global tour."

Jahoclave wrote:Though, part of your problem still stems from your adherence to viewing everything as utility value based. Not everything need produce value for capitalist exploitation.
The level of assumptions in your post is somewhat disheartening. Do you think I supported or opposed the Kelo decision? Which answer would be evidence for me favoring capitalist exploitation, and which would be evidence against that?

Spoiler:
I hate that decision. What is the measure of wealth? Not dollars or ounces of gold, but human satisfaction. If someone is unwilling to sell their home, then it is worth more to them than the market price, and to rob them of it so someone else can make more money and pay taxes on that money is pure villainy that destroys wealth. Especially in the Kelo decision, where the private company that was going to build on the land backed out, and now there is nothing but a brown field where a neighborhood used to be.


Again, the issue isn't that I have priorities or I think humans should have priorities. The issue is that I'm willing to do math on those priorities and question assumptions. (Just questioning assumptions isn't very useful if you can't math your way to an answer.) If the justification for pushing everyone into a college program is that people with bachelor's degrees earn twice as much as people with high school diplomas, then we should exercise our critical thinking skills and examine that justification.

As Aetius points out, is correlation causation? It's clear how a doctor or lawyer could not be able to have the job they have now without their degree, but it's not clear how much they would have earned in a different field. Education may just be sorting people according to intelligence and determination, with the predictable results that groups of smarter and more determined people make more money on average. If that's the case, then widening the "bachelor's degree" bucket won't make the people now in the bucket better off, just lower the average of the bucket.

As Dark567 points out, "a bachelor's degree" is very imprecise. If some majors result in higher incomes and others don't, then why not fund degrees based on the increase in income? Note that one of the common arguments for government subsidization of higher education is that it creates a positive externality or it's an investment in future tax revenue. There's strong reasons to question this, as this suggestion highlights. If the positive externality for an engineering major is higher than that of a theater major, the government should pay theater majors to become engineering majors. But theater majors are already paid to become engineering majors by the market after they graduate!
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Zamfir » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:If it turns out that getting a degree in the humanities is essentially a 4-year vacation, how should that change our behavior? Should we still encourage people to borrow money to do it? Note that pretty much any article about how you can still make money with a humanities degree barely has its content changed if you replace "humanities degree" with "high school diploma" or "year-long global tour."

You seem to imply that the essense of an education is the amount of income that derives from it? So that an education that does not raise someones income is "essentially" a vacation?

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Vaniver » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:56 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:You seem to imply that the essense of an education is the amount of income that derives from it? So that an education that does not raise someones income is "essentially" a vacation?
Is there another measure of an education as an investment vehicle? I suppose it could help you alter your spending behavior, but that's a stretch.

I don't mean to denigrate vacations or increasing your capacity to enjoy life. Those are both valuable things, but they should be described honestly.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Another Article about the Education Bubble

Postby Zamfir » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:04 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:Is there another measure of an education as an investment vehicle?

Why add "as an investment vehicle"? The whole point is that reducing activities to the categories of "investment vehicles" and "vacations" is a bit silly. Changing diapers is clearly not a very profitable investment vehicle, is it therefore a vacation?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AdsBot [Google], measure and 21 guests