The Dirty Truth of Modern Higher Ed

[Fjd]

 

We are getting to the point where our society today almost requires a degree as a "natural selection" entry-type qualification.[/size]

Yes, a bachelor's degree is pretty much the new high school degree in many fields, it's a minimum.

However, I work as a programmer for a large tech company and we can't hardly find anybody who can do certain things such as design websites. We know what good design looks like and lots of applicants just can't do it. Even if they have a portfolio of good looking sites, they know how to modify preexisting templates but that's it. We will view the code of a site they supposedly built and quiz them on the innards and they have no idea how it works. We have said multiple times we will gladly hire a guy with no degree who can do the work.

 

 

 

Funny, but not surprising in that the job candidates seem to be "overstating" their contributions to the historical portfolios they are presenting as part of their resumes. 

 

Before I went to college, I was the accounting manager (fortunate to work my way into a degreed position without the degree) for a division of a large public company and I would take the COBOL source code for certain reports and modify the code, and recompile the code, for ad-hoc reports that I needed to troubleshoot and reconcile general ledger accounts.  However, I would never think of asserting that I was proficient in COBOL on my resume.   

 

I tell the people that come through my group on our "management development program" that there is a big difference between 5 years of progressive experience vs. 1 year of experience done 5 times and to make sure they are building a knowledge-base of skills and not sitting in a comfort zone and doing the 1 year experience 5 times.

 

 

 

 

We have said multiple times we will gladly hire a guy with no degree who can do the work.

 

 

I would tend to agree with this; however, sometimes corporate politics can come into play where when things don't work out, someone needs to make someone else the scapegoat to protect their own reputation.

[Fjd]

"The education industry," according to these analysts, "represents...the final frontier of a number of sectors once under public control" that have either voluntarily opened or...have "been forced" to open up to private enterprise. Indeed..."the education industry represents the largest market opportunity" since health-care services were privatized during the 1970's...From the point of view of private profit, one of these analysts enthusiastically observes, "The K–12 market is the Big Enchilada." - Jonathan Kozol

 

I thought the above is an interesting quote and from the article below it looks like the corporations and private equity firms are invading the charter school arena too.

 

Charter School Power Broker Turns Public Education Into Private Profits

http://www.propublica.org/article/charter-school-power-broker-turns-public-education-into-private-profits

[Fjd]

Now I'm thinking there may be some whining going on as I found a few 'fun facts' in the article at the link to the Washington Post below. According to this article in the Washington Post based on a study of law school return on investment, "for most law school graduates, the net present value of a law degree typically exceeds its cost by hundreds of thousands of dollars."

 

The typical law school graduate receives a median earnings bump of $32,300 per year, and a mean earnings bump of $53,300 a year. The premium grows as the years pass. Even those graduates at the 25th percentile of lifetime earnings enjoy an earning premium of $350,000, exceeding the average cost of law school.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/18/ignore-the-haters-law-school-is-totally-worth-the-cash/

 

[The numbers the skeptics cite are sobering: 12.8 percent of members of the class of 2012 were still unemployed in February 2013. Only 64.4 percent got jobs that actually required passing the bar. The median starting salary — $61,245 — was about 15 percent below the 2009 median. At law firms, starting salaries were down 30.8 percent.

 

That all sounds really bad. But they get away from the central question here: is the amount of money law graduates make greater than the amount they would have made if they hadn't gone? And is that premium greater than the cost of law school? The answer to both questions, a new study finds, is yes. Seton Hall's Michael Simkovic and Rutgers's Frank McIntyre conclude, "For most law school graduates, the net present value of a law degree typically exceeds its cost by hundreds of thousands of dollars."

 

Those familiar with the data on the returns to education shouldn't be surprised by that conclusion, but Simkovic and McIntyre are more careful than most in reaching it. They rely on the United States Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) and the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS), both longitudinal studies that allow Simkovic and McIntyre to track the earnings of individual people. Even better, SIPP identifies which people have law degrees, something most Census data don't do.

 

They also control for a variety of observable characteristics — such as college major, socioeconomic status, race, and more — that might cause law school graduates to have higher incomes than those who didn't go for reasons that have nothing to do with law school. NELS allows them to single out characteristics that differentiate law students from those who don't attend, to ensure that they're comparing those who go to law school to demographically similar people who didn't.

 

And they find that law school grads get a median earnings bump of $32,300 per year, and a mean bump of $53,300 a year. The premium grows as the years pass:

 

But not everyone's at the median, of course. Tamenaha objects to Inside Higher Ed that the study "blends winners and losers," and doesn't consider people for whom law school might not pay off. That's false - the study does look at the bottom half of law school graduates. And they find that even those at the 25th percentile get a lifetime earnings premium of $350,000 (before taking the cost of law school into account):

 

Of course, law school has costs too. But the average tuition for three years is about $90,000, far less than even the 25th percentile of law school grads earn. Even if you assume an annual tuition of $60,000 — above what even the most expensive law schools charge for tuition, fees, and books — that comes to $180,000, below the $350,000 premium that students at the 25th percentile get. The annual rate of return at the median, in real terms, is about 13 percent, well above, say, stock or bond returns. "These results suggest that even at the 25th percentile, the value of a law degree exceeds typical net-tuition costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars," the authors write.

 

That stays even when you take federal taxes into account — taxes which are higher precisely because law school provides a wage premium. Going to law school also typically requires foregoing three years of earnings, or at least greatly reducing them, but Simkovic and McIntyre's hold up after taking that into account too.

 

What about student loans, though? Surely those have been exploding, right? Sure, but there's little sign that law school grads aren't able to pay them back. The default rate for law school grads is about a sixth of the rate for bachelor's grads:

 

"The data suggests that the law degree reduces the risk of distress by reducing the likelihood of unemployment, increasing labor force participation, and increasing expected earnings over the course of a lifetime," they conclude.]

 

 

Given the above, I realize that not everyone will be hired by the big law firms; however, to me, it would seem that the returns for a law degree are still out there and it can be a very lucrative career financially.  If I were going to law school, it would seem that a practical solution for someone pursuing a law degree would be to try hard to limit the debt and find work in a 'related field' for a few years before law school.

 

From my experience dealing with the lawyers specializing in securities law, I suspect that most young lawyers are useless to most everyone for anything other than maybe researching and writing.  In addition, they have practically no connection with, and very little ability to understand the clients' businesses in their decision-making process and how they plan to cover risk.  There again, my advice would be to get some real world business experience before law school. 

 

I would agree that the old models in law are probably gone forever; however, the same is true for most professions.....the old models that many of us are most familiar with are long gone.  I agree with the posts regarding the development of 'people skills' and my advice would be to also develop an entrepreneurial-type approach and insight.  The world is full of people with 'skills' but how do you plan to differentiate yourself and reinvent yourself when the legal environment and/or business changes? 

 

If you can't focus any experience in the entertainment, pharmaceuticals, insurance, aerospace, or telecommunications industries; there are other related fields that will result in good money including commercial leasing, real estate title and, of course, the in-house legal counsel jobs I highlighted in an earlier post.

 

Of course, there is always the path of butt-busting, non-stop trial work for a state's attorney's office.  However, to me it would seem like a prudent move to develop other commercial skills along with this experience. From my experience, the most lethal business attorneys working with securities law that I have encountered in my profession are the attorneys that can litigate, negotiate deals and understand most aspects of commerce, including the impact of tax law.

 

If this isn't you, and you still want to be a lawyer, then I would suggest taking some lower-tier school courses and develop skills in these other areas too.  I believe that sometimes it just comes down to critically assessing yourself (do a personal SWAT analysis to figure out where improvement is needed) and how bad you want it.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Fjd

[Mallette]

Until the late 19th century, there were  only a few law schools, perhaps 5 or 6.  Lawyers, Abraham Lincoln among them, "read" for the law, studying Blackstone and similar law books and then tested for the bar or admitted by completing an apprenticeship.  Pretty much what I am suggesting a return to, though using modern controls to ensure competency and consistency.

 

Classrooms are the most inefficient means conceivable, in terms of cost, consistency, and effectiveness for most academic subjects. 

 

Dave

[Fjd]

Classrooms are the most inefficient means conceivable, in terms of cost, consistency, and effectiveness for most academic subjects. 

 

 

From a general perspective I would agree and as I'm sure you are aware, there is typically profit to be made in eliminating inefficiencies and increasing effectiveness in any system.  I just haven't fully thought about if the various proposals in this thread would eliminate choice and access to education.  Without these fundamental aspects, someone like eth2 or myself may not have been afforded the opportunities we pursued later in life.

[Mallette]

I just haven't fully thought about if the various proposals in this thread would eliminate choice and access to education.

 

My opinion is that the use of available technology as I have proposed would vastly increase choice and eliminate wealth as a factor in achieving goals.  As I used to tell my classes, an instructor cannot teach anyone.  The best he or she can do is to create conditions under which a student can learn if he or she is motivated.

 

That's what we can do with technology. Create an equal opportunity system where anyone who has the desire can learn and be credited with their accomplishments.  I am open to any argument that the current system come remotely close to this.

 

Dave

Edited November 27, 2014 by Mallette

[Jeff Matthews]

Pretty much what I am suggesting a return to, though using modern controls to ensure competency and consistency.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e46072ODxV4 

[Mallette]

Don't know what that was about or where it came from, Jeff.  Please explain to dummy Dave.

 

However, it had occurred to me that I could probably provide several students with full scholarships who wished to "read" for various subjects, use MOCS. and whatever to get to where they could pass tests.  I believe there are millions who could do this if they had the chance.

 

I will have a hard time just helping my son get through a state college or university.  But I could help him and several others who wanted to learn if we had an up to date, competency based, education system.

 

Perhaps I am poor at describing this...but I know what it would look like and that it would work.  I also believe that it's the only way to equal opportunity education for all.  As an old oilfield friend mine who I miss dreadfully used to say "I am as serious as a turd in the punchbowl" about this.  It's a passion I intend to pursue in my old age.

 

Dave

[Fjd]

 

As I used to tell my classes, an instructor cannot teach anyone.  The best the can do is to create conditions under which a student can learn if he or she is motivated.

 

 

 

This is a great line. I truly believe that education will only provide a return for what the students invest in participation. Rather than think about the person as an "instructor" I have always thought of the person as the "facilitator." In most classes that I have attended, I had thoroughly dissected and analyzed the material and came to class with the goal of clarification or interpretation into a more understandable form of 'plain English' that may not have been evident in my study.  I wanted to really understand the concepts and think about how they could be applied in new situations.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Fjd

[Mallette]

You get it, Fjd.  I was hardly anything like a great teacher, but I was able to look around a class and by the end of the first one have a pretty good idea of who would make it and who wouldn't.  I believe I never gave a student a failing grade.  They EARNED it the old fashioned way. 

 

Nobody can educate another. 

 

But they CAN facilitate it, and so can technology.  I know teachers are cringing at this, but I've stated clear that teachers will always have a role, and that role is one on one intervention, counseling, guidance, and encouragement.  It is not giving mind numbing lectures and making threats.  It is absurd to think that a teacher can really communicate precisely as required to more than a single student at a time.  Consider this group.  There is a different attitude for every individual arrived at not by listening to some lecture, but by personal life experience.  We are talking about real academic freedom here.  We haven't had it for centuries and it's time.  Look at these images and try to explain to me why we still use these same methods today when we have far superior means available to use to create conditions under which people can learn at their own rates.  One if Hypatia's classroom from Agora, one of my favorite films and is considered quite authentic.  The other is an actual Roman instructor with students.  All looks state of the art compared to most colleges today. 

 

 

 

 

Dave

[Fjd]

You get it, Fjd.  I was hardly anything like a great teacher, but I was able to look around a class and by the end of the first one have a pretty good idea of who would make it and who wouldn't.  I believe I never gave a student a failing grade.  They EARNED it the old fashioned way. 

 

Nobody can educate another. 

 

But they CAN facilitate it, and so can technology.  I know teachers are cringing at this, but I've stated clear that teachers will always have a role, and that role is one on one intervention, counseling, guidance, and encouragement.  It is not giving mind numbing lectures and making threats.  It is absurd to think that a teacher can really communicate precisely as required to more than a single student at a time.  Consider this group.  There is a different attitude for every individual arrived at not by listening to some lecture, but by personal life experience.  We are talking about real academic freedom here.  We haven't had it for centuries and it's time.  Look at these images and try to explain to me why we still use these same methods today when we have far superior means available to use to create conditions under which people can learn at their own rates.  One if Hypatia's classroom from Agora, one of my favorite films and is considered quite authentic.  The other is an actual Roman instructor with students.  All looks state of the art compared to most colleges today. 

 

Roman_school.jpgagora-classroom-big.jpg

 

 

 

Dave

 

 

I went back and re-read your posts and I do see more of the merits in what you are proposing. 

 

A personal example from the early 1970s (long before the technology available to us today) that comes to mind is when I started junior high, I was placed in a math program that was based on less structure than the typical classroom and based more on the individual's ability to accelerate their learning.  After completing this program (the two years in junior high) and by the time I entered grade nine, I was doing college level work in math. 

 

The technology available today would sure help with the implementation and scalability of the idea.

 

It is interesting to note that we also had a slower-learner math program too. The overall set-up of this math program was much different than the typical "honors" classes that you may find today and I do not believe that you will find many schools today with three separate math programs that compares. 

 

What you propose would be a substantial paradigm shift and I suspect the push-back would not be much different than how the Montessori education approach was met with during the early 1900s for which the "educational establishment" that existed at that time significantly limited the spread of her ideas.  It wasn't until the 1960s when her ideas really started to take root.  Hopefully, your ideas will not take as long.

 

However, as corporations and private equity firms become more involved in education, enjoy the current profit returns that can be generated, and try to turn education into some type of commodity; rather than the teachers, I suspect that the most significant impediment would be the "business side" of the educational establishment and lobbying effort they bring to the table.  

[Rhetor]

The biggest problem is that federal student loan monies are granted to students who attend not fully (regional) accreditation (like SACS here in the southern region). Only private and public colleges and universities of substance gain and must retain that accreditation.

If no more federal student loans were granted to students who attend non-regionally-accredited schools, 90% of the scam schools would disappear.

Many students attend a college or university without knowing they are being scammed by a joke school and can never transfer their credits.

But the federal student loan program grants loans to these joke schools, most for profit schools. Students and taxpayers have nothing but debt to show for a person hungry to follow the dream of pursuing a degree.

Shut the spigot off to the unaccredited schools, not only saving dollars in the end, but saving the unaware student of student loan debt for no return, thereby killing their dream.

I am thankful for the student loan program. There was no way I could have gone to college without it. No family could help. No real scholarships to be gotten. With a combination of part-time minimum wage work and student loans, I got my first degree. Then as a working professional, was able to earn a couple of more grad degrees with no debt. It took 10 years to pay off my original undergraduate student loans, but it was worth it.

The key was the original degree was with a fully regionally accredited school (even one with no real name recognition), which opened the door to professional and graduate level education opportunities.

Tell anyone thinking about a non-regionally accredited school to "Run!" This was not so true in the 70's and 80's but it is absolutely true now!

Once I got my first degree, my professional options grew beyond frequently just saying, "Do you want fries with that?"

Edited November 27, 2014 by Rhetor

[Mallette]

The technology available today would sure help with the implementation and scalability of the idea.

 

All the theory and technology are readily available.  Most never see tests designed in accordance with the best test and measurement theory available.  I've had the advantage of becoming friends with a Rice University professor who is one of the best in the world at such things. 

 

You can trust a competency test designed not by a teacher, but by a teacher working with a test and measurement specialist.  They are fair, and not susceptible to tampering within any likely means...and certainly magnitudes less so than written tests. 

 

It is hard to get people to see beyond the ancient model so embedded in us.  But it is costing us billions, maybe trillions, debt enslaving so many, and ensuring education is only for those with deep pockets.

 

I am glad you, and hopefully others, are beginning to see the potential to bring about a paradigm shift in education that would have ramifications throughout society and create a stronger economy and greater opportunity for all. 

 

Dave

[Paducah Home Theater]

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/239779

 

Interesting stats right there.  Add those up, that's a 157,820 gap between jobs listed and jobs being fulfilled, and that's only 10 job types.  Think about it, 157,820 good jobs are available that are not being filled in only 10 fields.  Many more or being listed but they're finding candidates.  Every one of them either requires a degree or is at the minimum highly desired.  If you're competing for the ones that are being filled, you can bet that they're usually going to consider the folks with degrees first.  

 

Speech pathologist jobs requires a masters degree.  You can't be an RN without going to nursing school, same deal with physical therapy.  A marketing manager at a decent sized company?  Good look landing that job without something like an MBA.  Every network administrator, web developer, and software engineer, I've ever met has had a degree, and I've met A LOT.  

 

My dad actually was an industrial engineer without a degree, it only took him 30 years of experience to get to the point where he climbed up enough to pull it off.  YMMV.  

Edited December 3, 2014 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters