Is College a Rip Off? - John Stossel & Physics Majors

[Mathnomalous]

TwoFish-Quant, from what you describe, it seems college is indeed a rip off. To me, it makes no sense that an English major and a Physics major pay the same amount of tuition when, after the degree is obtained, the Physics major is going to profit more than the English major.

I understand your point about the economics of intangibles vs tangibles. The problem is that those intangibles are being attached to tangible assets; for example, it is possible to train myself in an academic field with just a library card, but the person who paid $ to obtain a piece of paper that certifies (s)he learned the exact same knowledge will probably get the job over me.

 

[mathwonk]

post 27 pretty much said it all. was it euclid ? who told his slave to give the mercenary student an "obolus:, "since he must gain something for everything he learns".

 

[Pengwuino]

Wait wait, why do we keep arguing the value of an education based off what you can get in terms of a high paying job upon graduation? That's not the universities problem. It costs relatively the same amount to teach a physics major as it does a philosophy major as it does a political science major. Professors don't see too much variation in their pay from department to department. The facilities are roughly the same. Sure STEM majors require equipment and labs, but at the same time they bring in external funding to counter those costs.

The cost of the degree should be based on how much it costs to educate a person for that degree. If you base everything on how much you are expected to make in your field, then you'll turn every major into systems such as med schools and law schools. You would have to pay engineers more because universities would charge more and as you pay engineers more universities would charge more and you'd be in a nasty cycle.

 

[caffenta]

Wait wait, why do we keep arguing the value of an education based off what you can get in terms of a high paying job upon graduation? That's not the universities problem. It costs relatively the same amount to teach a physics major as it does a philosophy major as it does a political science major. Professors don't see too much variation in their pay from department to department. The facilities are roughly the same. Sure STEM majors require equipment and labs, but at the same time they bring in external funding to counter those costs.

The cost of the degree should be based on how much it costs to educate a person for that degree. If you base everything on how much you are expected to make in your field, then you'll turn every major into systems such as med schools and law schools. You would have to pay engineers more because universities would charge more and as you pay engineers more universities would charge more and you'd be in a nasty cycle.

Wasn't it the point of the original post (college is a rip-off)? I agree that it's not the universities' problem, but apparently some think it should be. I don't see anything wrong with colleges today.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Wait wait, why do we keep arguing the value of an education based off what you can get in terms of a high paying job upon graduation? That's not the universities problem. It costs relatively the same amount to teach a physics major as it does a philosophy major as it does a political science major. Professors don't see too much variation in their pay from department to department. The facilities are roughly the same. Sure STEM majors require equipment and labs, but at the same time they bring in external funding to counter those costs.

The cost of the degree should be based on how much it costs to educate a person for that degree. If you base everything on how much you are expected to make in your field, then you'll turn every major into systems such as med schools and law schools. You would have to pay engineers more because universities would charge more and as you pay engineers more universities would charge more and you'd be in a nasty cycle.

Because a good chunk of those who attend university do so more for economic reasons than for intellectual reasons. Many universities respond to this demand by increasing tuition and promising their graduates better chances of a lucrative career. Let us put it this way, how many people would pursue a Pure Sciences Ph.D. if they were required to pay full tuition for it? How many people would attend a university if they were told they had the same chances of obtaining a job as a high school graduate?

I agree it is not the universities' problem, but they do not necessarily point it out.

 

[caffenta]

Let us put it this way, how many people would pursue a Pure Sciences Ph.D. if they were required to pay full tuition for it?

You do pay full tuition as a grad student. It is part of the stipend you receive as a research or teaching assistant. Check with your department. Degrees that do not have a research side are forced to teach, very often outside their degree.

How many people would attend a university if they were told they had the same chances of obtaining a job as a high school graduate?

Perhaps they shouldn't attend university.

 

[Mathnomalous]

You do pay full tuition as a grad student. It is part of the stipend you receive as a research or teaching assistant. Check with your department. Degrees that do not have a research side are forced to teach, very often outside their degree.

Great. Instead of a RA or TA slot, treat it as an unpaid intern position.

Perhaps they shouldn't attend university.

Hey, I agree. How many people on these forums would follow this advice?

 

[caffenta]

Great. Instead of a RA or TA slot, treat it as an unpaid intern position.

Well, you do get paid, a little. On the bright side, if a post-doc is ever bragging about how much more money he makes, you can always tell him that your portion of the research grant is pretty much the same as his since he has no tuition included.

 

[Antiphon]

The problem is...

1) demand for degrees isn't very elastic,
2) it's trivial to arbitrage. Suppose I pay $500 for a BA in History but then I take all engineering classes for my electives. At that point I've got a cheap BA in Engineering
3) information issues
4) social equity issues - people with money can choose whatever degrees they want, and people without money end up with the leftovers

Markets work really, really well in some situations, but in things that involve health and education, markets tend to work really badly, in large part because the assumptions that go into the market framework break down in a big way.

One problem with health and education is that health and education aren't tradable commodities. For example, if I have a block of gold, I can trade that block of gold for a hot dog. I lose a block of gold and get a hot dog. Someone else loses a hot dog and gets a block of gold. Presumably we are both better off, or else we wouldn't have made the trade.

Health and education just doesn't work this way. I can't sell my degree for money, and there is no way that I can sell knowledge in the same way that I sell gold. If I give you a block of gold, I'm out one block of gold, but if I teach you astrophysics, I don't lose that knowledge. So the economics is going to work very differently, and there is no reason to think that what works for tangible goods will work for intangibles.

Something that I should point out is that once you put prices on something, it becomes obvious that people aren't interested in knowledge. I can give you the same Algebra I course that you could get from me at University of Phoenix. What you get from UoP is not a better course, but a piece of paper that you can convert to a job that presumably makes you more money that you paid UoP.

2). Charge by the course then no arbitrage can occur.
4). The social equity issues are alread there. I would have liked to go to harvard but could only afford a public university.

Markets work just fine in health care and education. You have simply confused goods with services.

By your reasoning markets don't work well for buying cable TV or software.

You are correct that people don't get degrees for the knowledge but for the certificate. I don't hire engineers who have read a lot on their own but haven't got a degree. Why would I?

 

[Mépris]

And that's very good of you to be interested in both. You will pick a science/engineering major and take some elective classes in the arts. Where exactly is the rip-off part?

Other people are mostly attracted by the creative subjects, just as some people are interested only in the technical subjects. They choose a major based on their primary interest and university provides them an easy way to check other subjects. You never have that opportunity later in life.

And what do people in this thread propose to fix the supposed problem? Eliminate all "useless" majors? Who decides what is useless? You might end up with all science majors eliminated because the powers that be think that engineering is where it's at.

I was never for the sentiment that college/university is a rip-off.

The (allegedly) "useless majors" can be studied solely on the basis of academic interest, no? Whatever happened to learning for the sake of learning/personal interest? Being able to get a job through them, I guess, would just be a bonus.

 

[twofish-quant]

2). Charge by the course then no arbitrage can occur.

In that case you have arbitrage between the same course teaching two different departments.

4). The social equity issues are alread there. I would have liked to go to harvard but could only afford a public university.

So why make the system worse?

Markets work just fine in health care and education. You have simply confused goods with services.

Markets are quite broken in health care and education for various reasons.

By your reasoning markets don't work well for buying cable TV or software.

They work only because you have IP laws that enforce transferability. And in many situations that don't work pretty well because you end up with network effects in which you have groups that make monopoly profits. It's called rent-seeking. Increases prices. Decreasing efficiency.

You are correct that people don't get degrees for the knowledge but for the certificate. I don't hire engineers who have read a lot on their own but haven't got a degree. Why would I?

Because you are propping up a system that is basically broken.

 

[caffenta]

I was never for the sentiment that college/university is a rip-off.

The (allegedly) "useless majors" can be studied solely on the basis of academic interest, no? Whatever happened to learning for the sake of learning/personal interest? Being able to get a job through them, I guess, would just be a bonus.

We are in perfect agreement on that. I'm sorry if I made it sound like you were arguing the opposite. I was mostly answering the thread in general.

I recommend to anyone to take a few classes outside their normal coursework if they can. I didn't do it so much as an undergrad, but I did so in grad school and I'm glad I did.

 

[Mépris]

We are in perfect agreement on that. I'm sorry if I made it sound like you were arguing the opposite. I was mostly answering the thread in general.

I recommend to anyone to take a few classes outside their normal coursework if they can. I didn't do it so much as an undergrad, but I did so in grad school and I'm glad I did.

You're going to need more than your word.


Seriously though, I'm glad we do.

 

[Pengwuino]

Because a good chunk of those who attend university do so more for economic reasons than for intellectual reasons. Many universities respond to this demand by increasing tuition and promising their graduates better chances of a lucrative career. Let us put it this way, how many people would pursue a Pure Sciences Ph.D. if they were required to pay full tuition for it? How many people would attend a university if they were told they had the same chances of obtaining a job as a high school graduate?

Yes but as you say, that's not the universities problem. Hell, to steal the cable tv analogy, i only watch a few cable channels but still have to pay full price for all of them (not that that doesn't annoy the hell out of me...). We also do pay full tuition. It's just that various entities find it beneficial to pay students to attend (ie the slave labor of a TA)

 

[Shaun_W]

I think it's a bit of a rip off. It only really exists as a form of proof to employers that I can jump through a certain amount of hoops. I suppose that's quite useful for becoming another faceless cog in the corporate machine, though.

I feel it's very much a case of examination over education. I spend too much time learning how to answer questions the way that the lecturer wants them to be answered, too much time writing and preparing useless lab reports and too much time memorising rather than understanding. It's not really an education any more, though, is it, given that for pretty much any career nowadays you need a degree to get your foot in the door. Universities know this and thus can charge extra because they know that you'll get nowhere without their bit of paper. We're in the bizarre situation where people are essentially paying to get a job!

 

[caffenta]

I think it's a bit of a rip off. It only really exists as a form of proof to employers that I can jump through a certain amount of hoops. I suppose that's quite useful for becoming another faceless cog in the corporate machine, though.

You can't blame universities for this. They did not create this situation. Employers and society in general did.

I feel it's very much a case of examination over education. I spend too much time learning how to answer questions the way that the lecturer wants them to be answered, too much time writing and preparing useless lab reports and too much time memorising rather than understanding.

Making supposedly useless lab reports is standard practice in science. You'll be making plenty of those in your lifetime. And if you're not getting some form of understanding, something's not right. I don't even know how one could stay afloat in any of the physical sciences, or even engineering, just using memorization.

It's not really an education any more, though, is it, given that for pretty much any career nowadays you need a degree to get your foot in the door. Universities know this and thus can charge extra because they know that you'll get nowhere without their bit of paper. We're in the bizarre situation where people are essentially paying to get a job!

Again, this is not caused by universities. You are mixing up cause and effect. Universities want nothing more than to teach for the sake of learning. They are being forced to change their ways to make a degree more relevant to today's job environment, whatever that means.

The real rip-off is the job market.

 

[jeebs]

I don't think so, not as far as physics goes anyway. I did a foundation year leading onto a 4 year physics course (of which I am in the fourth year) and I am in about £35,000 of debt. I think it's worth it, I wouldn't trade the education I've been given for anything. I'm a different person for having gotten it, changed my outlook on everything. Best decision I've ever made.
Tuition fees are tripling in a couple of years here in the UK, but I'd still say that's worth it to avoid a lifetime of ignorance.

 

[twofish-quant]

I spend too much time learning how to answer questions the way that the lecturer wants them to be answered, too much time writing and preparing useless lab reports and too much time memorising rather than understanding.

Sounds like a typical day at the office. Seriously.

It's not really an education any more, though, is it, given that for pretty much any career nowadays you need a degree to get your foot in the door.

There is a reason for this. If your professor tells you to fill out a dozen stupid lab reports, you will do it. You may complain. You may grumble, but in the end, you'll do it. Having a bachelor's degree tells the employer that if they ask you to fill out a dozen stupid lab reports, you'll do it.

This *is* education. Now, it may not be very romantic, and while you are filling out a dozen stupid lab reports, you may be imagining yourself tossing those lab reports at your boss/professor and then traveling to a deserted island and writing poetry.

Universities know this and thus can charge extra because they know that you'll get nowhere without their bit of paper.

And then they structure their education to get what employers are looking for. If you want a brilliant C++ programmer, there is no need to get a bachelor's degree. You can take a quick test, and quickly see if the person is a good C++ programmer.

What you *can't* figure out from a quick test, is whether or not, the person is willing and able to fill out a dozen stupid forms to meet a stupid deadline, and able to sit in a long boring and useless lecture. That's what a bachelor degree proves. It's basically a certification that you can control your emotions, meet deadlines, and manage schedules.

Before the 1960's, people used military experience for that certification. One advantage of college is that people aren't shooting at you.

We're in the bizarre situation where people are essentially paying to get a job!

That's not a bad deal if you get a job in the end. It stinks if you don't.

 

[twofish-quant]

Yes but as you say, that's not the universities problem.

I think it is the universities problem.

Call me old fashion, but I still think that part of the job of the university is to be an "alma mater" (i.e. a foster parent). I don't particularly like the idea of a university as a "service provider" where you pay your money and get a piece of paper.

We also do pay full tuition. It's just that various entities find it beneficial to pay students to attend (ie the slave labor of a TA)

This points out a basic conflict of interest. Someone selling used cars shouldn't be expected to tell you that it's not in your interest to buy a used car. However if a university really is an "alma mater" then it should.

 

[Pengwuino]

I feel it's very much a case of examination over education. I spend too much time learning how to answer questions the way that the lecturer wants them to be answered, too much time writing and preparing useless lab reports and too much time memorising rather than understanding. It's not really an education any more, though, is it, given that for pretty much any career nowadays you need a degree to get your foot in the door. Universities know this and thus can charge extra because they know that you'll get nowhere without their bit of paper. We're in the bizarre situation where people are essentially paying to get a job!

It's not as useless as you think. I haven't written an essay in years and when I had to start writing statements of purpose to enter graduate school, I was in a rough spot. The essays I wrote in high school and a few in college felt meaningless to me, but if I had to constantly write a couple essays every semester, I wouldn't have been in such a crumby position when it came time to write essays that actually were extremely important to me.

And the fact of the matter is people DO get fired because they can't write a good report. I think a lot of the problems start in the K-12 where you have teachers that don't really know what they're doing. They ask students to write a lab report for example. However, they nit pick over whether or not you have an equipment list, if your references were cited using a comma after the book title or a semi-colon, and other completely irrelevant stuff. Then this gets passed on to college students who are taught by other college students who half the time don't care about their jobs as lab instructors and they don't really know what's important in a lab report either.

 

[Pengwuino]

That's not a bad deal if you get a job in the end. It stinks if you don't.

Agreed. And when DOESN'T this happen. Vocational school, community college, online lessons, none are free. Hell even if you go work at a fast food place, you have to pay for your clothing to work there. Open a business? Don't even bother talking about profiting for a couple years!

 

[twofish-quant]

You can't blame universities for this. They did not create this situation. Employers and society in general did.

I don't care who created the problem. I do care about who fixes it. Part of the responsibility of being an intellectual is to accept responsibility for fixing problems that you had no part in creating.

Making supposedly useless lab reports is standard practice in science. You'll be making plenty of those in your lifetime.

And sometimes the reports are useless. Having the patience to do something stupid and useless because authority tells you to do so is part of the skill set that you learn in universities, and what employers look for (seriously).

Again, this is not caused by universities. You are mixing up cause and effect. Universities want nothing more than to teach for the sake of learning.

I don't think that's true. Part of the problem is that a "university" is not a human being, and when you talk about what an organization "wants" it's difficult. You have the paradoxical situation in which everyone in the organization says that they want something, but the organization does something different.

They are being forced to change their ways to make a degree more relevant to today's job environment, whatever that means.

Forced by whom and how? One clever trick is to say I want X, but I'm forced to do Y, which incidentally benefits me. It's even more clever if it happens to be true that you are forced to do Y. So you get the benefits of doing Y, without any of the guilt.

The good news is that once you realize that universities aren't going to educate you, then if you want to be educated then you take it on yourself to educate you. You got a library card. Go into the university library, go to the bookstore, and find some random book and learn something.

The real rip-off is the job market.

Sure. How to fix? There is a fundamental tension in universities. On the one hand, people with money want universities to create corporate cogs. On the other hand, corporate cogs don't really react that well when something new and unexpected happens. You spend your days filling out stupid reports and playing stupid politics, and then one day the economy collapses, and then no one has a clue what to do. It's not in the manual. You are waiting for your boss to tell you what to do, but he or she doesn't know.

Personally, I think that there is a role for someone or something to give you some ideas what to do when the bottom falls out. Being able to fill out reports is great if you have an office job. But what happens if the bottom falls out, and there are no office jobs. What happens if your country falls apart?

What use is physics or French literature? Well, if it gives you something to think about if you end up in the middle of a great depression or if you find yourself in a political prison or a refugee camp.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also if you want a reading list...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674011465/?tag=pfamazon01-20

and the look at the associated books.

 

[twofish-quant]

And the fact of the matter is people DO get fired because they can't write a good report.

Each quarter, I have to write a report that basically says "This is why you should not fire me."

Also being able to write good e-mail and good powerpoints is critical.

I think a lot of the problems start in the K-12 where you have teachers that don't really know what they're doing.

They really do know what they are doing. You learn a lot if you follow around a K-12 teacher. What happens is that they are given a list of points to teach, and they are evaluated on how well they do at teaching them. Everything revolves around the lesson plan.

However, they nit pick over whether or not you have an equipment list, if your references were cited using a comma after the book title or a semi-colon, and other completely irrelevant stuff.

That's because its how they are evaluated. Now you may argue that it would be better if you had people with deep science training teaching K-12. That may be so, but...

1) you are going to have to vastly increase teacher salary
2) people that have deep science training often do not have the skills to teach K-12. A lot of K-12 involves babysitting, and being a Nobel prize winner doesn't qualify you to babysit.

Then this gets passed on to college students who are taught by other college students who half the time don't care about their jobs as lab instructors and they don't really know what's important in a lab report either.

Important for whom?

 

[Pengwuino]

Each quarter, I have to write a report that basically says "This is why you should not fire me."

Also being able to write good e-mail and good powerpoints is critical.

Indeed, a good power point puts the viewer to sleep in the shortest amount of time possible so that they don't realize you don't know what you're talking about!

They really do know what they are doing. You learn a lot if you follow around a K-12 teacher. What happens is that they are given a list of points to teach, and they are evaluated on how well they do at teaching them. Everything revolves around the lesson plan.

...That's because its how they are evaluated. Now you may argue that it would be better if you had people with deep science training teaching K-12. That may be so, but...

I don't even see it as needing a deep science knowledge requirement. A report should tell someone something using a clear, concise explanation. My students ask me some of the silliest questions which I feel is due to how they were educated about reporting. They ask if this size paper is ok, can I use a pen, can I scan a graph, etc etc. I have to tell them to just do whatever you want as long as it forms a good presentation that tells me what I need to know.

Then again that seems to be a bit against what your idea of a bachelors is - a piece of paper confirming you know how to do what you're told. Although I suppose them listening to me and dispensing with the irrelevant parts is another form of doing what you're told...

Important for whom?

I suppose that is the problem. I personally think everyone who reads a report is looking to be convinced of something or to have something explained. So to me, it means people who don't care about the nit picky stuff. Maybe that's a bad assumption?

 

[caffenta]

I don't care who created the problem. I do care about who fixes it. Part of the responsibility of being an intellectual is to accept responsibility for fixing problems that you had no part in creating.

Yes, but you have to fix the right problem. Is the university system the real problem? Or is it the expectation that people have? I'm not saying universities are perfect now. Far from it. But the current direction it's going doesn't really please me. College is not a job training program.

And sometimes the reports are useless. Having the patience to do something stupid and useless because authority tells you to do so is part of the skill set that you learn in universities, and what employers look for (seriously).

That's what I was saying. Students shouldn't just dismiss everything as useless. Even in the workplace, apparently useless things sometimes have a reason. I was always complaining under my breath in my early career about the ridiculous amount of documentation required by the industry's standards. That is, until I joined a company that did not document anything. Then I realized the value of the standards. I still don't like doing it, but I “get” it.

I don't think that's true. Part of the problem is that a "university" is not a human being, and when you talk about what an organization "wants" it's difficult. You have the paradoxical situation in which everyone in the organization says that they want something, but the organization does something different.

Forced by whom and how? One clever trick is to say I want X, but I'm forced to do Y, which incidentally benefits me. It's even more clever if it happens to be true that you are forced to do Y. So you get the benefits of doing Y, without any of the guilt.

I think they are pushed (forced may have been too strong a word) by people constantly (and loudly) complaining that college does not prepare kids for the workplace. But is that really the university's job? It is partially, but it shouldn't be just that. If you turn universities into job training centers, then the people who would benefit from the traditional role of universities lose out. Science would definitely lose out.

The origin of this thread (college is a rip-off because return on investment blah blah blah) is a perfect example of this misguided view.

Sure. How to fix? There is a fundamental tension in universities. On the one hand, people with money want universities to create corporate cogs. On the other hand, corporate cogs don't really react that well when something new and unexpected happens. You spend your days filling out stupid reports and playing stupid politics, and then one day the economy collapses, and then no one has a clue what to do. It's not in the manual. You are waiting for your boss to tell you what to do, but he or she doesn't know.Personally, I think that there is a role for someone or something to give you some ideas what to do when the bottom falls out. Being able to fill out reports is great if you have an office job. But what happens if the bottom falls out, and there are no office jobs. What happens if your country falls apart?

Yes, and that's my point, especially the bold part. If universities were to become simple job training centers, then nobody would know what to do when it's not in the manual. One reason that industry hires science/engineering PhDs is because they have the ability to make the manual, so to speak, rather than just follow it.

I think we actually agree on most parts. My main point is that I don't want to see universities turn into just job training centers. They should adapt, but not follow the loudest voice regardless of what it says.

 

[lawsofform]

Firstly, I'd like to point out that university tuition is very much shaped by market forces already. If you want a PhD in any subject (where the emphasis is on doing academic work rather than gaining marketable skills), chances are good that you won't have to pay for it. If you want something immediately applicable to making money, like an MBA or professional degree, you'll pay through the nose. If you want to be able to go to school on your own schedule and get a degree quickly without taking hard classes, you go to a for-profit school where you pay far more than the degree is actually worth by comparative standards (meaning, a degree from a for-profit school costs more than you'd pay at a state university, where you'd probably get a better education).

I would venture to say that most undergraduate degrees from a conventional university are about equal in terms of earning potential. Of course, if you look at entry-level salaries by degree, you'll find that the liberal arts majors make less than the engineering majors, but you also need to account for the fact that difficult majors tend to shed the less-dilligent students while easier ones will coddle them along, and that these people are less likely to get a high-paying job regardless of their field of study.

But when you pay for a degree you're largely paying to get "in". You get a piece of paper that says you're suitable for the higher echelons of employment. So you're in a good position to make more money than a person without a degree, but how much you actually make has more to do with what you actually do in the employment world than what you studied in school. Engineers make a lot of money, but the vast majority of people who make a lot of money are not engineers, and I'm also confident that most of those people don't do a job that requires a particular undergraduate degree. For example, consider that the undergraduate degree is irrelevant for lawyers and doctors.

I personally have a degree in english literature. My current job has absolutely nothing to do with it, but three years out of school I am in a supervisory position making more than most of my peers. I'm won't say whether my degree prepared me for my job in some nontangible way, but it's a fact that I wouldn't be where I am without it.

 

[Mathnomalous]

I'm won't say whether my degree prepared me for my job in some nontangible way, but it's a fact that I wouldn't be where I am without it.

D'accord.

I think that is how many people see it. Personally, I think those who choose to attend university should major in the Physical Sciences or Engineering, not because they might get a "better" job, but because the knowledge is extremely valuable. I am recently opening up to the idea of being a plumber with a Physics or Electrical Engineering degree; I bet that would be fun.

 

[Shaun_W]

You can't blame universities for this. They did not create this situation. Employers and society in general did.

No, but as places of education, they shouldn't be whoring themselves out as mere services that get people from high school to a job.

Making supposedly useless lab reports is standard practice in science. You'll be making plenty of those in your lifetime. And if you're not getting some form of understanding, something's not right. I don't even know how one could stay afloat in any of the physical sciences, or even engineering, just using memorization.

I don't know about American universities but in Britain we're bread from a very young age to pass examinations in our school system, and this naturally carries on up to our universities. It's very possible to pass the exams very well almost solely by memorisation/rote learning/regurgitation - almost everyone does it. It's expected of us. It's a waste of time trying to understand fully all the concepts that are in the notes that the lecturer goes over in class when you can look at previous exam papers and easily memorise the method of answering the questions.

Of course, I didn't say that my "education" is based solely on memorisation but it is far too large a part of it. Then again if universities suddenly expected us to understand and think for ourselves almost everyone would fail since our schools actively discourage this sort of behaviour as it is less successful at acing exams, which in turn affects the school's results which then affects how much money it gets.

Again, this is not caused by universities. You are mixing up cause and effect. Universities want nothing more than to teach for the sake of learning. They are being forced to change their ways to make a degree more relevant to today's job environment, whatever that means.

I did not say that it is caused by universities but I am rather disappointed that they are selling out, so to speak, by becoming tests of how much bull**** someone will tolerate rather than centres of learning.

The real rip-off is the job market.

Yes.

Sounds like a typical day at the office. Seriously.

Probably, yes, I'll see for myself soon enough. But at least I'll be getting paid for it rather than the other way round.

And then they structure their education to get what employers are looking for. If you want a brilliant C++ programmer, there is no need to get a bachelor's degree. You can take a quick test, and quickly see if the person is a good C++ programmer.

What you *can't* figure out from a quick test, is whether or not, the person is willing and able to fill out a dozen stupid forms to meet a stupid deadline, and able to sit in a long boring and useless lecture. That's what a bachelor degree proves. It's basically a certification that you can control your emotions, meet deadlines, and manage schedules.

Before the 1960's, people used military experience for that certification. One advantage of college is that people aren't shooting at you.

Do they really, though? If that was the case, if my engineering degree was truly structured around what employers want, then why do employers also want me to go through so many assessment centres and tests?

Employers also want people who can think for themselves, think of new ways of doing things, and be self sufficient. The degree proves none of that. Real life isn't like university where there's a past-paper question extremely similar to this one, or it's answered in section 4.3.2 of the notes. Employers can't have hundreds of employees sitting around who don't have the foresight to see what needs to be done and who can't actually understand what is being done.

That's not a bad deal if you get a job in the end. It stinks if you don't.

I'd argue that it's still a bad deal for those who do get a job because they had to jump through many more hoops than their fathers and grandfathers.

 

[twofish-quant]

Perhaps, but it's really, really difficult to do deep science with any sort of cookbook lab experiment. Part of the problem with cookbook experiments is that I know what the answer is going to be, and part of me thinks that if you know what the answer to an experiment is going to be, you really aren't doing deep science.

One thing that you can teach in cookbook experiments is data presentation. I'm a bit fan of Edward Tufte.

I suppose that is the problem. I personally think everyone who reads a report is looking to be convinced of something or to have something explained. So to me, it means people who don't care about the nit picky stuff. Maybe that's a bad assumption?

Format becomes important in some situations. For example, often the reader is going through a large stack of reports, at which point things like margins, page limits, and fonts suddenly become extremely important. Something that perhaps gets lost is sometimes the question of "why". For example, I thought that margin limits and fonts sizes were silly, until I asked "why" and it was explained to me that you need things to be that way so that you can microfilm everything.

 

[twofish-quant]

No, but as places of education, they shouldn't be whoring themselves out as mere services that get people from high school to a job.

I don't know if I agree. As I see it, if I get a bunch of people interested in spending their lives thinking about the mysteries of the universe, part of my job is to make sure that they manage to find themselves in a financial situation so that they can spend their lives thinking about the mysteries of the universe.

My problem isn't necessarily that universities shouldn't be job placement services, but rather that universities aren't that good at that, and there are conflicts of interest that universities have to watch out for.

I did not say that it is caused by universities but I am rather disappointed that they are selling out, so to speak, by becoming tests of how much bull**** someone will tolerate rather than centres of learning.

I went to school somewhere that *encouraged* students and faculty to sell out. It's not selling out that concerns me. It's getting a good deal. My university was started by someone in the 1860's with the basic idea that if you build machines to do the work, you wouldn't need slaves, so working with industry is part of the deal, and it's a good thing.

Part of this is that I was educated in the US, and one of the explicit purposes of the place that I was educated at is to destroy class boundaries, and that means figuring out how a poor person is going to be able to get the time and money to think about Plato.

Do they really, though? If that was the case, if my engineering degree was truly structured around what employers want, then why do employers also want me to go through so many assessment centres and tests?

Because tests are cheap. Having someone test you for deep knowledge is extremely expensive.

Employers also want people who can think for themselves, think of new ways of doing things, and be self sufficient.

Not always. Sometimes the last thing that your employer wants you to do is to think for yourself, because if you think for yourself, you realize how badly you are being treated, and you end up demanding more money, which lowers the amount that the employer gets.

I remember once that I had a salesman sell me insurance. I knew that the insurance that he was selling me was terrible, but I really couldn't blame the salesman. Someone told the salesman to say what he was saying, and he sort of believed what he was saying. In this situation, it helps *NOT* to be intelligent and to *NOT* ask too many questions, because if you are too intelligent and if you ask too many questions, you couldn't peddle bad insurance.

There are lots of jobs like that. There are also jobs in which you spend eight hours a day putting slot A into tab B. People that are particularly intelligent or creative tend to go crazy doing that.

What I'm saying is that it's a bad idea to make your life depend on what your employer wants, since your employer wants a cheap robot, and you happen to be a human being.

Employers can't have hundreds of employees sitting around who don't have the foresight to see what needs to be done and who can't actually understand what is being done.

Depends on the industry. But in most industries, it turns out that you need only a relatively small number of people that think, and everyone else takes orders. Part of the problem if you like to think is to know when to shut up and take orders (and conversely when not to shut up and refuse to take orders).

One problem is that if you have a lot of smart people trying to decide what needs to be done, it can take a *huge* amount of time to make a decision. For some things, a quick bad decision is a lot better than no decision, so in those situations you need a few people to make decisions and then everyone else to follow them even if they disagree with them. For some things, there really is no way of resolving the answer by thought. For example, suppose I have money to open a restaurant. It can be Italian or French. If you have a hundred people debate which is better then nothing gets done. You sometimes just need someone to say, we are starting an Italian restaurant, and that person often doesn't need to be intelligent in the engineering sense.

I'd argue that it's still a bad deal for those who do get a job because they had to jump through many more hoops than their fathers and grandfathers.

I'm not so sure that's true. In the case of my father, one hoop that I didn't have to jump through that he did was "get United States citizenship."

The other point is that if universities didn't do this "teach people about bureaucracy" part, someone else would have to, and in the case of people born in the US before 1960, the someone else was the military. I think it's progress when you can learn about taking orders without getting shot at by real bullets.

 

[twofish-quant]

If you want to be able to go to school on your own schedule and get a degree quickly without taking hard classes, you go to a for-profit school where you pay far more than the degree is actually worth by comparative standards (meaning, a degree from a for-profit school costs more than you'd pay at a state university, where you'd probably get a better education).

Having worked at both a state university and at a for-profit university, I don't think that you would necessarily get a better education at a state university. Most state universities are just not set up to teach the type of students that for-profits are.

University of Phoenix is a lot like McDonalds. If you work at UoP as an adjunct, it's like working at McDonalds flipping burgers. However the genius of UoP, is that you can take burger flippers and create a pretty consistent and good product.

I personally have a degree in english literature. My current job has absolutely nothing to do with it, but three years out of school I am in a supervisory position making more than most of my peers. I'm won't say whether my degree prepared me for my job in some nontangible way, but it's a fact that I wouldn't be where I am without it.

I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics, and my current job is really close to what I was doing when I was at school. My ambition was always to be a permanent graduate student, and I've come pretty close. The interesting thing is that almost none of my skills are things that I learned in a formal class. I get paid to program computers, but in my entire life, I've only taken one class on computer programming and everything else I taught myself. However, in order to teach myself computer programming, someone had to give me access to a computer cluster and a library. So the university was pretty essential for my current position, even though the classes there were not.

 

[SpeedOfDark]

You can teach yourself, and while it may appear that many business's don't higher people without degrees may be true A lot do. Don't waste $100,000 if you don't want to go to college don't go because someone else THINKS they know what's best for you. Go to college because you love to learn or maybe even because you love to get drunk and meet girls. Go because YOU want to not because everyone else does.

 

[CheckMate]

Yes you can teach yourself, but if you want funding for your research , you need to have a PhD.

College does cost a lot and that's because the government and educational institutions prey on people's needs or what seems to be needs for some. The government gets more money from interests of loans and institutions can raise the cost as they see fit. A university like MIT is prestigious and some people would pay more than 100K a year just to attend it.

 

[twofish-quant]

Yes you can teach yourself, but if you want funding for your research , you need to have a PhD.

You really don't.

A university like MIT is prestigious and some people would pay more than 100K a year just to attend it.

Which is really a terrible reason for going to MIT, and it's deeply ironic. One of the most important things that you learn at MIT was that prestige is total nonsense. I wouldn't pay 10 cents for MIT prestige. Now there are *other* things that you learn at MIT, which are useful.

One thing that you do learn is a little arrogance. Something that you find out when you meet Nobel prize winners and CEO's of big companies is that they are human and like all humans some of them are total jerks. Once you realize that people that you are in awe of are just human, there's a little voice inside of you that says "hey, if so-so can do X, so can I."

Something that happened to me was that I left MIT hating MIT. It turns out that that's because I had a really good education there. If I had a sub-standard education, I'd be happy about my education, but I can think of a dozen things wrong with MIT (e.g. they are being totally incompetent with what they are doing with Open Courseware), and I left tremendously dissatisfied. That's good. Because the second you are satisfied, there is nothing to improve.