You guys are confusing my point about total cost and my point about less waste. They are really separate and someone else brought up tuition costs, not me.
I mean really and working in a college for the last three months I have seen some amazingly dumb fees imposed and increased. Arkansas State University not a top-tier athletic school in any sport and probably never will be but because we just hired Brady (former LSU coach) the student athletic fee will now double from $240 per semester to $480 per semester. The school tells you that it is to pay the various costs of the benefits you get from the athletic program such as free entrance into any game. You know how many students use this convenience, less than 5%. I could go on and on but there are so many that I don't have time to sit and name all of those absurdities.
Not really because vocational means they will be a tech, rather than a teacher, engineer, researcher, doctor,etc. Those who want to do more need to compete. Genuine curiosity, why do they need to know this to answer math? Is this a special 3rd grade for landscapers? If they read books, that had such things its a great way to teach them. Well thats similar to many things in school where subjects are related. A student poor at english often has problems in history math etc.
I'm not sure what the UT administration is going to do once Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium reaches 250,000 seats, or whatever the ultimate figure is going to be. Kill themselves? Jump in front of the proverbial bus? What's UT going to do when they've paid their football coach more than any other university in the country and they lose? Jump into Lady Bird Lake? It's become absurd. Tuition and fees skyrocket, but the University will find a way to giganticize their athletic program, somehow. Trim Bush.
I know that this is going to sound really far from my typical views, but I think that, as a society, we get pretty good return on investment from our secondary education in this country. We could do better, and we certainly need more technical school graduates, but isolating on university education, we do pretty well. I just think that for individuals, that picture is less rosy. And if you believe, as I do, that the cost of college is a symptom of easy credit, I think we should concentrate on that and trying to reduce that.
I probably wrote that after the wrong quote. They do read books and they can eventually catch up, but if a student who really is intelectually gifted but is tested as needing special Ed, that child isn't going to be taught to the best of their ability. They are going to receive an inferior education and may be left out out of college, despite their actual ability to do well, or perform. Then it isn't an accurate assessment of their math abilities. That's my point. They are going to be assessed in English already. Math assessments should be to assess their ability at Math. That's why there are different subjects. The way children are assessed in many cases favors one group over another, and if we are limiting the number of students that get into Universities then it should be as close to an even playing field as possible.
I think you are wrong and I believe your opinion is because you don;t know how much is wasted. Recently Texas started a rule that after you have attempted 30 hours beyond what you need to grad (for instance you paid for but later dropped or flunked a class, you attempted it, and say you need 133 to grad and you have attempted 163) then you need to pay international tuition which is 3 times as much. This means that international is the actual cost, ie Texas and USA pays this amount with you paying the rest. This is a ton of cash gone down the drain. And its obviously a problem or they would not have started it.
I don't know what perception you guys have of the 80's...70's?...60's?....but in my experience....kids today are much more focussed and driven at school then ever before. Scarily so.... I just don't see high college participation rates being this horrendous pending problem for the US.
I could add some controversial statements, as I've become pretty opinionated working in higher ed. the last 10 years (and lately with some administrative work, ugh). I'll just say this: the country should keep its eyes open on higher ed. While we've largely deregulated certain sectors (e.g. finance), there is significant movement toward greater government involvement in college education. The current administration has really moved the ball toward government oversight and "accountability" for academia. (I do not pretend to know if this relates to the two-way-disdain between most campuses and the administration over the last eight years.) The "assessment" trend, modeled on certain corporate buzzwords and largely created by Ed.D's (don't get me started), is affecting universities coast to coast. Two excellent University of California campuses were just put on accreditation "probation" because they don't slavishly adhere to the latest buzzwords and practices for "assessing student learning." Any of us would die to have a kid go to these institutions, but the bureaucrats are labeling them inadequate. I don't even have a take, despite my negative tone. It is what it is, as they say. I only have this misgiving: the government has been heavily involved in K-12, and how's that working out for the country so far? Is college education where we need to rethink what we're doing? I don't think so. (I know this makes me sound a little more like my conservative brethren on the board.) The cost issue is a different issue and a serious one; many universities waste a ton of money. It's not just athletics. The "student services" side of the aisle has grown by leaps and bounds recently. There are positions like "Dean of Alcohol Abuse on Tuesday" and what-have-you. (That's only barely a joke.) These salaries and budgets eat up a lot of $ at a small school, in particular. I know of one west coast private school that has 5,000 students and *18* vice presidents. student-to-vice-president ratio should be listed as a sign of university efficiency, I think, for starters.
I think just like there is a growing wealth gap, there's a growing education gap where the top tier students are smarter than ever and the lower tier are being left further behind. I don't have anything to back this up and am just talking out of my arse as usual but that is my perception.
Well I like the coporate instinct that might mean becoming a bit more efficient. Remember this is also involving years of wasted labor for the economy. On the cost issue. YOu nailed a pretty huge cost. They have become so profitable that universities are now trying to enroll everyone they can. The student activities cash (millions upon millions for a single uni) is to entice customers...err....students.
I never thought of it like that but I think that is a good way to put it and I can definitely see it happening in all aspects of education.
Would this not be healed by instituting a middle education as a real option? I knew a ton of guys who went to college now working for 10 per hour. IF they had intead done 2 years or so and been job trained it would be much better. It seems the "education gap" you theorize could be helped by limiting the all or nothing everyone should go to college ideals, replaced with the proper education for your abilities, work ethic, and desires.
It's funny, as many (most? I don't know) are non-profit entities. They try to balance their budgets, that's it. If there is surplus, they do some campus maintenance or increase their scholarship $. BUT, we're in agreement here. As all costs rise, as administrations grow, and as they need to field more and more departments, they only have one business model: more students and higher tuitions.
I'm not talking about the waste. I just think that the value added to society in productivity, ingenuity, and influence from our secondary education compared to what we as taxpayers pay for it is pretty good, and certainly better than the return on investment for primary education, Welfare, and Defense. I don't think it's as good as it has been, but pretty good nonetheless.
Maybe you are seeing this at the University level, but in primary education the opposite has happened. Education at the high school level is worse overall, but the top students in public high schools have suffered the most. I place the blame for that entirely on the Department of Education.
Yes I am just thinking there is a ton of waste and we can get more of the benefits you mentioned for the money (taxpayers money and the students money) Think about what is better for society a dropout with 2 years of college and no degree or the same guy who did 2 years vocational and increased his earning potential.
Much of the High school problem is the fact that all our population must attend. In other countries it is optional legally. This is why universities can excel beyond.
