Yup. All started with the the government intervention/meddling of course, just like health care etc etc.
I studied EE in college - it seemed like 30%-40% of my class was comprised of international students here on student visas. Those folks need employer sponsorship after graduating. This is a phenomenon you don't see in the college of liberal arts, communications, etc. While you're right, they're less likely to change jobs, it costs a company like MSFT a lot of money to sponsor an H1 visa.
If you look at the curriculum, it's designed so as to balance technical electives with fine arts and social science elective requirements. My faculty advisor once told me it was so the College of Engineering doesn't graduate "nerds". I remember taking Psych 301 (Intro to Psych), Philosophy 304 (Contemporary Moral Problems), Geography 305, and Children's Lit among others back in the day, But, I do agree that all college students would benefit from better business fundamentals. Basic coursework on finance, accounting, marketing, ops and statistics would be extremely helpful. That's roughly 9-15 hours of coursework, depending on how you want to split it up. Easily doable within 4 years.
There is also risk involved for the sponsor company as those people can leave MSFT behind and ply their trade with a competitor.
Yes, why have land grant colleges? Why have any federal funding for higher education at all? Why have GI bill? I am sure the US would still be a super power with a 5% of its population with college degrees. Lets get rid of department of education and public education, we should set our goals on joining the Taliban controlled Afghanistan at the bottom of the world ladder.
Most times they will have to re-apply for a green card which delays them becoming a permanent resident. Once they get the green card, it's open season though.
Ask this question, why are many of the science, engineering, math and computer science students, especially the grad students international students? Could it be the culture in the United States that degrade scientists and engineers? Manipulating stocks and figuring out how to charge your customers is much more valued than doing science research.
Perhaps because our universities are better than other countries in this regard? Those foreign students come here for technical degrees because that's where high paying jobs are. There's no reason for them to come here for a liberal arts or communications degree, so they are not represented in those parts of the university. But most of those students return to their home countries after getting those degrees - that's a bit different than the H1B Visa people or a lack of qualified people here.
Culture has a lot to do with it - engineers and programmers are not viewed as cool despite the relatively decent pay. Higher degree of difficulty - most students don't want to put in the time and effort, and take an easier route. Failing Out/Quitting - tons of engineering students either can't hack it and fail out, or don't want to put in the hours and transfer to an easier major. There's enough weed-out classes to fail out a good chunk of students. As far as the grad students go, most American engineering/CS students go straight to work rather than do a MS. However, for someone from India, for example, they do their 4 years at IIT, then apply to schools in the U.S. for an opportunity to come over here. That's their only way of getting to the U.S.
I believe there should be trade schools, and internships for job training. Education may well add skills used for the job, and in fact prepare people for a job, but the primary function should be for a better exucation.
Unions used to do this, but it's been determined (usually by the same people who would go to Union trade schools) that they're evil and anti-American.
Doesn't community college do this? If they do not do enough, they should do more of this type of training. I know in other countries they have this type of community colleges(vocational schools) that provide many type of hands on the job training.
By the way, who started that? Some idiot president let Congress get away with establishing state-run universities like Texas A&M by signing the Morrill Land Grant Act. That idiot was, of course, Abraham Lincoln... who was once a Republican.
I'm waiting till after November to pay off the rest of my student loans. I'm expecting Obama to propose a loan forgiveness program to bribe the youth vote, so might as well wait and see.
I see what you are saying and agree within the scope, but you seem to be focusing on some degrees only. While you may value some degrees more than others, and industry may value some degrees over others, the overall objective of education dictates that no degree is more valuable than another unless what's being taught is outdated or biased. The real problem IMO is that people who are getting degrees which DO NOT fit neatly into corporations can not seem to find jobs, and can not start a business because they are in debt, or will have to take on debt to start it. It certainly does not cost me 10-12k to study in the US or anywhere in the world, which is precisely why they will prefer me (international student) over American students all else equal. That's wrong on many levels. Many people are studying things which they should not be studying and dumbing down those degrees because they are not genuinely passionate about those topics, so on average they will not be as committed to being succesful. The mere presence of profitability damages these institutions. It is simple, an organisation can simply not pursue maximum profit and maximum education. Which do you think will suffer now that academia hs been re-structured to the liking of corporations? Using money to separate the serious students from the clutter is not a great approach, it is just putting a band aid on the real problem: students are being forced into certain parts of education which are more profitable for the economy, and right now, a huge number of students are misplaced. In this way, we are being treated as robots, minions for whatever phase the economy is going through right now. This makes us chess pieces, because there are people just like us making those decisions, and their ability to continue making those decisions however they want relies heavily on compliance with this plan. Why are politicians even interested in education? Logically speaking, a government can and should be barred from any participation in education. There is no justification for government being involved in education. Few, if any, governments can demonstrate that they have a positive effect on education. Many can demonstrate that government participation forces the direction of education. I'm not sure people are grasping how education is central to our standard of living, our sustainability, and the health of the planet. These are critical things to the human race present and future, and only by conquering and dividing people into continents and countries and cities and towns and villages are we convinced that it is NOT so critical and must be micro managed by governments. Any non-human entity which attempts to influence this process is essentially engaging in an attack on the independence of education, which should be protected closely. Seems almost insance that there is no powerful independent global institution tasked with blocking any attempts to reduce the independence of education. If arms and weapons are going to be used in the world, and wars are going to be carried out, here's what we should be fighting for. While this will be touchy for some, a great way to see this in action is to look at non-democracies and how institutions in those countries are fully immersed in controlling education. While many will no doubt have the impression that this is radically different than the way things are in developed countries, a short stint in the education sector of a developed country will convince you that it still happens as much as it is allowed, on a larger scale, and in a more polite way. Most governments are horrified about the idea that they can not touch education. Why? Does a government not trust the people who elected them to maintain the independence of academic institutions? Can the electors not tell the electees that some things are non of the government's business? It's hard to thin of these things when we are thinking in terms of tuitions and possible future jobs and job insecurity. But this, IMO, is the overall reality of education: totally corrupt.
Don't you find it crazy though that you would structure your central learning experience around a small part of your life: the period where you have to give your goals up for the goal of an organization because you need the money? We should all pursue our own goals coupled with the appropriate education. For some it's more difficult than others, and some take comfort in being told what to do. But even in construction, corporate slavery is a means to financial freedom at the cost of temporary captivity. To think that I would gear my entire life around that drives me crazy honestly.
Brilliant post. Macro and micro are for the most part just propaganda for conservartive political economics. That is why the Koch brothers are so busy endowing chairs of "free" enterprises". The average biz school grad has no idea of what they have been sold. They then have it all reinforced by reading the now Rupert Murdoch owned WSJ. Talking about bubbles. As far as the privatizing of education advocated by the libertarian/conservative types is just same ol same ol. Turn public education and other gvoernment servicesinto a money maker for the contributors of the politicians and have it paid for by government. The ideology is all about crony capitalism
