Are Colleges really to Blame?

[thezman]

OK, so after seeing you guys rip apart and complain about college students I need to put my two cents in.

One of the first things that any group of Administrators will tell you at any university and/or College is that a degree, any degree does not help you get a job. You still need months of job training or a higher degree.

My father, who graduated from an Ivy league institution over 20 years ago, was a Business major undergrad. When he graduated, he still needed to go get an MBA. His exacts words were, and he's been telling me this for years; "One or the other was a waste of time. In the MBA program i had to take the same accounting class I took undergrad. I WISH I HAD STUDIED SOMETHING ELSE, I'LL NEVER GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO DO IT, and the MBA would have given me what I needed to know."

My mother was a credit officer at a bank. She was an anthropology major in another Ivy League University.

There is no problem in going to school for a Music Degree. If a person's parents saved for them to College, they saved it for them to do what they want to do. If they are going on a scholarship, then they worked for it and got what they deserved. If you're angry because there are lots of music majors soaking up, what you think are your, tax dollars in getting a useless degree, then let me remind you that those students and their parents ALSO pay taxes to whatever state your in.

There are many businesses that look for job candidates with a music background specifically because it shows hard work, determination, and being able to get the job done well.

The truth of the matter, about any degree, is that the degree doesn't matter. It's the GPA, place in graduating class, and the name on the degree that does.

[PMeuph]

OK, so after seeing you guys rip apart and complain about college students I need to put my two cents in.

One of the first things that any group of Administrators will tell you at any university and/or College is that a degree, any degree does not help you get a job. You still need months of job training or a higher degree.

The truth of the matter, about any degree, is that the degree doesn't matter. It's the GPA, place in graduating class, and the name on the degree that does.

What about Co-op degrees, you get a degree and education? (Most of the time the school helps you ind the job, or the company will hire you because you are cheaper labor)

GPA and place in graduating class will not help you get a job necessarily. (They'll help with Grad school, and maybe an entry level position if you have no experience, but the completed degree is often enough.)

The reason for this thread, was to see other peoples idea's about the current "college bashing" that exists. (ie. blaming the college for the fact that they have 40000$ in debt and the best paying job they can find they would have whether or not they had their degree...)

[PMeuph]

Regardless of the degree, I'm perfectly comfortable with open access to PRIVATE post-secondary education (as long as students find PRIVATE institutions that will accept them - as well as their private methods of payment), but I would REALLY like to see (at least in MY state...YOUR states may certainly do as they please) PUBLIC post-secondary institutions require (as an admission requirement) either [a] three years of full-time employment - even if at minimum wage), three years of military service, or [c] three years of full-time volunteer work as a REQUIREMENT for admission. You see, "tuition" for PUBLIC secondary education institutions covers only a small amount of the actual cost (thus the "in-state" vs. "out-of-state" rates, and the huge discrepancy between public and private institutions' tuition rates). Since taxpayers are required to fund these public post-secondary education institutions, I would like for there to be some semi-safeguards put in place (as outlined above) to prevent (mental) children from "playing around" at taxpayers' expense as large percentages of students (again, regardless of degree program) seem to not be very mature.

Whether the degree is expected to lead to some sort of employment is beside the point. I would like for a higher percentage of those who are burning other adult citizens' tax monies for very expensive educational experiences to POSSIBLY be making those spending decisions using quasi-adult reasoning skills. Having those below 21 years old (as slowly as most post-modern American families are allowing their children to mature) voting, operating automobiles, and serving in the military is a sobering-enough proposition. To have them spend (typically) two-or-so years (before dropping out) "messing around" - when funds are so scarce in every corner - is often profoundly irresponsible.

yet another blunt, unpopular, and controversial opinion brought to you by the... "bloke"

Although I don't agree with all those points, I feel you raise some good issues. I concur that it should be that those who waist time at college (fail classes and such) should be held accountable for it. (ie. Pay the FULL cost of it)

One other way to reduce a State's cost would be to increase the amount of "teaching" college as opposed to "research" colleges. Let's face it, a Tenured Performance prof, would do the same "research" he does whether he was tenured or not. Maybe they would publish less articles...Probably not, those who do it, do because they love it. ( Research refers to: Recitals, Chamber music, Conferences, playing with ensembles...etc) The 'research' activity of a performance professor does not contribute much to the collective knowledge of the field.

[thezman]

The purpose of any school, college or university is NOT to help you get a job; it is to give you an education. The fact that in America it costs $40000+ dollars to go to college is no ones fault. Running big Universities is expensive. Business and Institutions want to hire educated people. It is a multi-step process, and no one is at fault. Colleges, and Universities, graduate, for the most part, educated persons.

[ghmerrill]

Colleges, and Universities, graduate, for the most part, educated persons.

Have you actually taught in a college or university in the past few years? Your assertion here would indicate otherwise.

Last year I had a discussion, with a well-known professor of religious studies in a major university, concerning the quality of students and what they learn by the time they graduate. He said that for the last few years he had been carefully assessing their ability to do written work and it was clear that for the most part these skills would degrade from the time the students entered until the time they graduated. And that this was a phenomenon he had been observing for about ten years. It was consistent with my own experience and with the experience of others. There are several contributing factors in this, but the degree to which many graduates of colleges and universities are now "educated" is highly questionable (though this is at least somewhat independent of their ability to seek and get jobs).

[k001k47]

To the "Professional Loser"(above)(& yes I'm only joking), I would like to address most of this post.

I did get a bit defensive there, but I didn't want to leave it on a sour note like that, especially with a good deep south TX tuba name like yours. It's good to have connections around, and I'm glad TubeNet offers that to some extent.

[Biggs]

Going to college in order to get a job is like going to the Olive Garden for a hamburger. It's technically possible, but you're missing the point.

Who am I to make such a claim? I am a full-time graduate student currently working two jobs, one salaried and one hourly.

[Rick Denney]

Here are a couple of college drop-outs.

That's two. Still a long way to go to defend the statement "notably high percentage". I'd be curious to know how you came upon such an assessment.

It is true that college has become the new high school, or, even worse, vocational school. It is not intended to be either, and it was never sensible that everyone would go to college. Not everyone has the interest or aptitude for that sort of education, which is fine--high school should provide enough basic literacy and numeracy to support adulthood. The problem is that employers now demand their applicants have college degrees whether or not the job descriptions support it. What does that mean? I think it means at least in part that college graduates make better employees, taken across the board.

On the subject of research, most music faculty are not part of that game at all, and they have no standing in the discussion. They do research merely to fulfill the requirements for tenure, but there is very little actual funded research in music and many other liberal arts.

In most parts of (particularly state-supported) universities, research is a revenue generator. Professors are expected to go out and generate paid research, either in the form of grants, as interagency contracts with other state agencies, doing federally sponsored research (of which there is much less than people think), or doing research for industry (of which there is much more than people think). Getting tenure as an engineering professor is a much different proposition than getting it as a music professor. In engineering, they want to see the publications, but they want those publications to write about paid research. If it weren't for research, most universities would require more taxpayer support or higher tuition, or both. But the revenue from research generally supports graduate students, not undergraduates, and it does not support teaching activities. In fact, the research generally undermines teaching quality and service to undergraduate students. That is a challenge.

If I am going to blame parents, I'm going to blame them for raising their kids with the assumption that they will go to college and get what used to be called a white-collar job. When it comes to letting them get away with poor work in primary and secondary education, parents and teachers deserve their share of blame. The Education Establishment has sent us backwards, but parents have become more disconnected from their kids and that is also sending us backwards. The other flaw in modern parenting is in not realizing that the job of parenting is to turn kids into adults. Many adults these days seem to be trying to turn themselves into kids, and that doesn't give their kids much room to grow. I meet lots of interns in my agency, and too many of them act as though it is our job to make them happy and successful. Those are the ones who need to flip burgers for several years to learn why education is important.

Rick "no stranger to university research" Denney

[sloan]

But the revenue from research generally supports graduate students, not undergraduates, and it does not support teaching activities. In fact, the research generally undermines teaching quality and service to undergraduate students. That is a challenge.

This analysis is short-sighted, and falls into the "colleges are high schools" trap.

Undergraduates who receive the bulk of their instruction from people who do not do "research" are being short changed. At the very least, a college-level instructor should have a *history* of actually doing research. On the other hand, "research" does not always mean "funded research" - it means participating in the creation of new knowledge (as opposed to the recitation, presentation, and explanation of existing knowledge). Those who *only* teach are, from this point of view, not qualified to teach at the college level.

There is a constant battle to maintain this point of view. Students, parents, administrators, etc. increasingly press for college faculty members who look just like K-12 teachers. Perhaps this is an inevitable result of the trend to treat undergraduate education as simply "high school with ash trays". But, it should be resisted!

There is another, equally insidious trend - that of the so-called "research professor". This class of individual does NO teaching - instead spending 150% of ever work week billing their time against research contracts. Research universities are slowly becoming landlords - renting space to folk who support themselves on research contracts, but see no students (except as employees), teach no classes (except "research seminars" which are thinly disguised meetings of the research team).
They are "members of the technical staff" in a research institute - but they "profess" nothing.

Colleges and Universities are not high schools - neither are they small business incubators.

Back to Rick's (mistaken) point: time spent in research does not "undermine" teaching quality. On the contrary, participation in research is an essential pre-requisite for success in teaching at the college/university level.

This point is best illustrated by common problems at either end of the college/university experience. Courses for college freshmen are frequently designed, staffed, and administered very much like high school courses. This (in my view) is a horrible mistake. I have always argued that freshman courses should be taught by the most SENIOR members of the faculty. The essential goal of a freshman course should be to show the students how people in that field think, what questions they think about, and how they attack those problems. This requires experience in actually doing all of that!

At the other end of the spectrum, my view is that "senior level" undergraduate courses are best taught by junior faculty. This material tends to be more focussed and technical - and benefits from being taught by someone who has MOST RECENTLY contributed new knowledge to the field.

Sadly, it is my (perhaps uninformed) opinion that many MUSIC programs do this exactly backwards.
But then, so do many MATHEMATICS programs (and, alas, many COMPUTER SCIENCE programs). It's not a problem unique to music.

[graybach]

Kenneth Sloan,
I must disagree. I think that any good teacher will keep up in his/her field regardless of whether he/she does official "research" or not. I never have thought it right that students pay tuition and get someone whose primary job is not to teach them, but to do "research." I have attended 2 universities and one technical college. I was blessed with great teachers at all 3 institutes. I believe that the technical colleges actually have it right over the research universities because the technical college I went to would only hire someone who had practical experience in his/her field for at least 10 years, and didn't care about whether they had done "research" or not, and didn't even require them to have a teaching degree! And certainly even thought they had not done "research," they were on top of the knowledge in their field. Besides, how much can really be published in certain fields that isn't already known? How much of that research really benefits the students?
I've seen dynamic teachers let go because they hadn't done enough "research," and I've seen absolutely horrid tenured teachers continue to keep their jobs because they did "research." Not to say that most of the teachers out there are bad; like I said, I was blessed with excellent ones...

[Dean]

I was well-aware that there was only one place I could work and earn a livable income (from one source). For a euphonium player, that is the military. I knew this before undergrad, and, of course, knew it throughout my undergrad and my year at grad school. There are other ways to earn a living as a euph player, but they are much harder.

I knew this, so no, I cannot "blame" anyone. How could I? Musicians have to realize that we will be paid far less than comparable (by competence) professionals in other fields. I make far less than a crappy doctor, a crappy lawyer, or an average investment banker (I don't think crappy investment bankers last too long...)

What do people really NEED? Every once in a while (hopefully never, but that isn't going to happen...) we need a doctor... an auto mechanic... a plumber... electrician... HVAC specialist, etc etc etc. (Sometimes, we need lawyers, real estate agents, and the like as well... because we have a society that has manufactured their need--wish that wasn't so!!) When you NEED something, you will pay what you have to pay. When does anyone really NEED a musician? And when a contractor wants a musician, there are usually enough around that the rates are quite cheap.

This is our trade off. We do it because when we were kids and we first heard an amazing brass soloist it made us feel great. Hopefully, we want others to feel great too. But, fact is, most people do not care, at least not enough to spend their $$$ on it. That is their choice. They will spend it on tons of other crap on iTunes before they give us a nickel. Again, their choice (and I have no problem with it).



If you want to be valued, you have to do something valuable.

[Dean]

Let me add this as well:

When I was studying music in my school years, there was literally nothing anyone could have told me that would've made me stop. I wanted it that badly.

[ghmerrill]

Finally, these "team projects" (which seem to be assigned at least once in nearly every classroom course in colleges and universities), emphasize socialism (from each according to ability - to each according to his needs) whereby dull/lazy contributors to projects are "dragged along" by bright/motivated group members - with the bright/motivated group members' grades for the projects being pulled down to the group's overall score.

I have not seen such team projects in the humanities (though that doesn't mean they don't exist). I have seen them (and as you point out, fairly frequently) in engineering and computer science courses, and social sciences (not in "hard science" courses). There is potentially tremendous value in such courses, and often in engineering programs there is a "senior project" that is team-oriented and frequently associated with a specific project sponsored by a company in industry. It is not unusual for students to be hired (either into a permanent position or into an internship) as the result of such a project.

In my experience, the grades of the bright/motivated group members are not pulled down by the group in such circumstances. Instead, these bright/motivated members take over the project and do all the work (they can't take the chance of having the others affect their grades). So the others end up mostly coasting and benefiting from this. This definitely was the case when one of my kids did his senior computer science project a few years ago. There were five students on the team. It turned out that the all but some of the trivial (mostly documentation) work was done by two (one my son, and the other happened to be a guy who worked for me at the time and was taking extra courses to get another degree). But I have seen this happen again and again. To some degree it is a necessary consequence of forming an arbitrary team rather than being able to choose it on the basis of competence.

My wife, on the other hand, had a wonderful experience (from the industry side) with such a project that was her idea and was sponsored by the company she was working for at the time. The end result was a significant software component that ended up being used in that company's product (one of the major retail store management and point-of-sale systems on the market).

But then to some degree the message here can be interpreted as "Welcome to the real world." Additionally it ends up (perhaps unintentionally and inadvertently) teaching lessons of how to give orders and direct a project (for the good students), and how to take orders and follow direction (for the others). However, in general I agree with you about the consequences and abuses of these kinds of "cooperative learning".

[ghmerrill]

Imagine what the results would be if you sent your tuba to me for a complete restoration job... and I was only assigned the "dent removal", a moron was assigned the "soldering", an idiot was assigned the "polishing", and an imbecile was assigned the "lacquering".

You have just described much of the current state of software development . But you have to add that the guy doing the dent removal is in China, the guy doing the soldering is in India, the one doing the polishing is in Croatia, and the one doing the lacquering is in the Philippines. In addition you must pretend that you are either actually doing the work or personally "supervising" it.

[Michael Bush]

Without going into a self-interested post about my time as a professor, I'll say about earlier life as a student that the best professors I had throughout my education were people who had done significant, agenda-setting research in their fields. Kevin Kiernan comes to mind, and Brevard Childs. Quite a few others.

That's not to say I haven't known important contributors to the body of human knowledge who were lackluster teachers (Jaroslav Pelikan?), but they are easily outnumbered in my experience by the ones whose research funded their energetic and engaged teaching.

It seems to me that a fair amount of criticism of faculty research comes from repeating what is heard on talk radio rather than from actual experience. Even many students who should know better because they've been in important researchers classes haven't figured out how much their teachers have contributed.

Maybe we should start a thread on lazy, PITA students and their helicopter mothers who waste everyone's time and resources. In favor of Bloke's idea, I will say that adult students who are paying the bills themselves do not pussyfoot around like many of their younger colleagues.

[ghmerrill]

How many college courses are actually taught by the professor in charge over his GA or TA?
Ken F.

In my recent personal experience with one large computer science program, a rather shocking number of even upper-level (i.e., junior and senior level) courses are taught entirely by a TA who (a) has had no training and little if any experience in teaching, and (b) is of course simultaneously working on his dissertation and frantically trying to publish.

Some schools (and departments) have in the past ten years (perhaps more, I've been mostly out of touch) been attempting to address the classic tension between research and teaching by hiring specifically into positions designated as "teaching professor". This is little bit like the academic moral equivalent of the "research track" vs. "management track" distinction in industry in that different criteria are used to evaluate the employee (professor in this case). While teaching professors are still expected to publish to some degree, the degree of expectation is explicitly reduced, and they have a higher teaching load. While the other (not actually "research") professors are expected to carry a continuing teaching load, this is less than for the teaching professors, and expectations for their publication (and grant! Don't forget about grants!!!) contributions are higher.

I personally don't like this approach since I continue to harbor the old-fashioned and unrealistic view that the primary role of the university is to teach, but at least it does address some problems, bring people into the classroom who actually want to teach (and may be good at it), and make it possible for them to get tenure and promotions.

[pierso20]

Regardless of the degree, I'm perfectly comfortable with open access to PRIVATE post-secondary education (as long as students find PRIVATE institutions that will accept them - as well as their private methods of payment), but I would REALLY like to see (at least in MY state...YOUR states may certainly do as they please) PUBLIC post-secondary institutions require (as an admission requirement) either [a] three years of full-time employment - even if at minimum wage), three years of military service, or [c] three years of full-time volunteer work as a REQUIREMENT for admission. You see, "tuition" for PUBLIC secondary education institutions covers only a small amount of the actual cost (thus the "in-state" vs. "out-of-state" rates, and the huge discrepancy between public and private institutions' tuition rates). Since taxpayers are required to fund these public post-secondary education institutions, I would like for there to be some semi-safeguards put in place (as outlined above) to prevent (mental) children from "playing around" at taxpayers' expense as large percentages of students (again, regardless of degree program) seem to not be very mature.

Whether the degree is expected to lead to some sort of employment is beside the point. I would like for a higher percentage of those who are burning other adult citizens' tax monies for very expensive educational experiences to POSSIBLY be making those spending decisions using quasi-adult reasoning skills. Having those below 21 years old (as slowly as most post-modern American families are allowing their children to mature) voting, operating automobiles, and serving in the military is a sobering-enough proposition. To have them spend (typically) two-or-so years (before dropping out) "messing around" - when funds are so scarce in every corner - is often profoundly irresponsible.

yet another blunt, unpopular, and controversial opinion brought to you by the... "bloke"

You raise some good points, except you are completely incorrect about the ratio of tuition to tax dollars (at least in Michigan). It is not anywhere what it used to be. In the 70's and 80's, tuition was VERY low compared to tax dollar support. Currently, students pay FAR more in tuition (per student) vs. the tax dollar contribution. CURRENTLY, (according the the University of Michigan) 65% of the cost of attendance comes from Tuition and only 22% comes from state support (http://vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/understa ... ition.html" target="_blank" target="_blank)

I think it is an unfair generalization to say that enough students "play around" with "tax money" that we should put a HUGE resitriction how they can go to school. I think MOST students utilize the money well and graduate in the 4/5 years I would expect. YES, some ruin that, but it is far less than folks may think. The other side is, much of the little aid folks do receive are LOANS. NOT free money to play around with (as federal/state grants tend to be tied to some sort of academic success).

There are MANY "Adults" far beyond 25/30 who "play the system", wrongly use tax monies, abuse the system, that I don't really think restricting students that much is the real issue. How about a better parent education system? Again, as I've said before...if PARENTS were actually rising to the challenge of...(gasp!) educating their kids, you would have better adjusted and more independent young people.

Frankly, I'm a little tired of all the "weary, old" tubenetters on here constantly bashing "children/young people". Apparently, NOONE under the age of 21 can do anything. You shouldn't be allowed to go to college, or the MALL (now THAT was a great convo...) unless you "do the ridiculous dance". Really, because all of those folks over 35 on here were SO responsible when they were young? Or perhaps, you folks were the few troubled ones? Not tring to be rude/disrespectful, but instead of coddling or placing insance restrictions on young people, we should be HELPING them? Or helping their parents help them?

I'm just a little tired of all the generalizing - it reminds me of the old cliche, "When I WAS YOUR AGE, I had to walk...." blah blah blah.

[Michael Bush]

(a) has had no training and little if any experience in teaching,

You're kidding, right? Because I assure you none of the tenured or tenure track faculty have ever had any training in teaching either, and whatever experience they've had has been entirely under their own watchful eye.

[TubaRay]

The other flaw in modern parenting is in not realizing that the job of parenting is to turn kids into adults.

True. True. Parents need to realize they don't need to be their kid's friend. They can get their own. Kids need their parents to be PARENTS. Parents, from the day the kid is born, should be working on turning their kid into the type of adult they believe to be the best possible adult. At first, they have virtually total control over the kid's life. Little by little, they "turn the keys" over to the kid, until eventually, the kid is an adult, and in charge of his/her own life. During the entire process, they should be providing guidance. This may include love, discipline, etc.

[pierso20]

Brooke,
We all speak from our own experiences. Relocate from rural Michigan to urban Memphis and then tell me again that the majority of those under 30 years of age are responsible adults.

I hardly consider South-East Michigan (Ypsilanti/Ann Arbor/Detroit) Rural.

My experience has nothing to do with the fact that most of college cost is actually paid by tuition now-adays.

I'm pretty sure when you start looking at "broken-down" city demographics, age has little to do with being responsible.

I would also wager a bet that many of those "irresponsible" individuals from broken-down cities are not attending colleges and therefore, really aren't to blame in the use of tax dollars (for education). Now...if we start talking about federal aid like medicaid, food stamps, etc...then we have another discussion entirely - one in which I absolutely believe there needs to be high accountability.