hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I'm going to write about problems I think exist in American higher ed because that's what I know about. Please feel free to talk about non-American systems (both problems and solutions) as that would enlighten the discussion.
The 'improbable' solutions in the title references the fact that it's hard as hell to change the educational system at any level in USA#1!.
My list of problems:
*Cost
*Access
*Educational Value
*Underperforming Students
*Institutional Inertia
*Outdated curriculum
To a large extent, many of these problems overlap and I'll try and explicitly link them when I can.
*Cost
*Access
*Educational Value
*Underperforming Students
*Institutional Inertia
*Outdated Curriculum
The 'improbable' solutions in the title references the fact that it's hard as hell to change the educational system at any level in USA#1!.
My list of problems:
*Cost
*Access
*Educational Value
*Underperforming Students
*Institutional Inertia
*Outdated curriculum
To a large extent, many of these problems overlap and I'll try and explicitly link them when I can.
*Cost
Spoiler :
So I think everyone realizes that the cost of attending college and/or universities in the US is skyrocketing. It's far outpacing inflation and has relied on student loans and huge federal/state subsidies for decades. Understandably, the cost of a truly good education is going to generally cost more than the average student or family can truly afford; hence the loans and subsidies.
Meanwhile, the number of schools and degree programs in this country is also exploding. Perversely it seems that the increased competition in the industry has actually driven up costs rather than lowered them. Part of this can be explained by the Private/Public divide and that fact that both systems require large amounts of subsidies either directly from the government or through student loans.
For example:
In 2013, a college might charge $10,000 for tuition. Out of that cost, let's say that the college knows that the average student will get $1000 in grants and $3000 in loans. Meanwhile, the state that the college operates in recognizes that the cost of education is rising and decides to raise the grant awards to $1500 for 2014.
Ordinarily, this would mean a student would then be able to take out $500 less in student loans. However, the college realizes that if they raise tuition to $10,500, the average student can still take out a $3000 loan instead of a $2500 loan. So they raise tuition, which causes the state to raise grant awards and repeat the cycle.
This is an oversimplification, naturally, but it does happen.
At almost no point does the state attempt to force schools to charge less and in reality it would be very difficult to do so for private schools. Even for the public schools, they can justify raising their tuition with new buildings/dorms/programs that require additional funds.
This brings me to another point on raising costs - that there are simply too many degree programs and in particular, next-to-worthless degree programs, for the system to maintain. By meeting accreditation standards, a school can open up a new program and attract more students. They can also heavily market these new degree programs and bank on the fact that it is accepted by the general public that a degree, any degree = success and the American dream.
However, it is very rare for states or accreditation agencies to question the utility of new programs. It is usually enough that a school wants to provide them, has the means to provide them and meets the necessary standards. It is unlikely for an accreditation board to deny a new program on grounds that it will not serve the public. DeVry Institute wants to offera new Gerbil Accounting program? Well, can they provide a 'good' gerbil accounting education? If the answer is 'yes', then program approved!
In a purely free market, this wouldn't be a massive problem. Worthless degree programs would be weeded out as the market rejects graduates with worthless degrees. Unfortunately for us, we are all paying for this market dysfunction through our subsidies and higher student loans. Further, the public itself hasn't seemed to catch on the fact that maybe sending Billy to Gerbil Accounting school is a bad idea. They are wedded to the idea that everyone should have a 4-year degree and can't swallow the idea that no only does everyone not need one, but some people actually shouldn't get one and should instead pursue a trade or work in a field that doesn't require one.
Another problem about cost is that schools do have to spend more on new facilities, better faculty, and so on. Obviously, a great deal of these things will improve their programs, but not all of them will. I brought up in other threads the limited utility of extravagant new dorms or expensive athletic programs as two examples of this. Private schools may do what they want with their money without justifying themselves to the broader public, but even public schools find it easy to justify un-justifiable (from an educational perspective) expenses.
I think some possible solutions to this problem are to be stricter on accreditation standards and to regulate degree programs. While many new degree programs do have to justify themselves as 'necessary' on some level, the current process has allowed too many schools and too many programs to exist that aren't serving the public.
I also think the entire student loan/grant system should be overhauled. We should throw out the current law that makes student loan debt the only (AFAIK) type of debt that can't discharged in bankruptcy. If loaning entities *know* they will get their money no matter what, there is essentially no risk in handing out larger and larger loans.
Further, I think we need to figure out a better way to ration grants. Currently, we ration grants from federal or state government with income limits and by capping the total award everyone can get. We also make re-training for a new profession extraordinarily expensive by disallowing grants for second degree students and grad students. I'm not sure quite how to tackle this, as I do feel everyone should be able to go to school for whatever they want and that it may be a bad idea for the government to 'pick and choose' which degrees would get higher grants for students and which should get lower grants. I would point out, though, that so long as states/the feds are subsidizing education at all, they should at least try and spend that money wisely. I see no reason why a history major is limited to the same grant awards as a Gerbil Accountant, and so on. Perhaps this could be tailored by region, so that where doctors are needed, more grants are given and where less are needed, less grants are given. But I don't really know as even this has problems.
Meanwhile, the number of schools and degree programs in this country is also exploding. Perversely it seems that the increased competition in the industry has actually driven up costs rather than lowered them. Part of this can be explained by the Private/Public divide and that fact that both systems require large amounts of subsidies either directly from the government or through student loans.
For example:
In 2013, a college might charge $10,000 for tuition. Out of that cost, let's say that the college knows that the average student will get $1000 in grants and $3000 in loans. Meanwhile, the state that the college operates in recognizes that the cost of education is rising and decides to raise the grant awards to $1500 for 2014.
Ordinarily, this would mean a student would then be able to take out $500 less in student loans. However, the college realizes that if they raise tuition to $10,500, the average student can still take out a $3000 loan instead of a $2500 loan. So they raise tuition, which causes the state to raise grant awards and repeat the cycle.
This is an oversimplification, naturally, but it does happen.
At almost no point does the state attempt to force schools to charge less and in reality it would be very difficult to do so for private schools. Even for the public schools, they can justify raising their tuition with new buildings/dorms/programs that require additional funds.
This brings me to another point on raising costs - that there are simply too many degree programs and in particular, next-to-worthless degree programs, for the system to maintain. By meeting accreditation standards, a school can open up a new program and attract more students. They can also heavily market these new degree programs and bank on the fact that it is accepted by the general public that a degree, any degree = success and the American dream.
However, it is very rare for states or accreditation agencies to question the utility of new programs. It is usually enough that a school wants to provide them, has the means to provide them and meets the necessary standards. It is unlikely for an accreditation board to deny a new program on grounds that it will not serve the public. DeVry Institute wants to offera new Gerbil Accounting program? Well, can they provide a 'good' gerbil accounting education? If the answer is 'yes', then program approved!
In a purely free market, this wouldn't be a massive problem. Worthless degree programs would be weeded out as the market rejects graduates with worthless degrees. Unfortunately for us, we are all paying for this market dysfunction through our subsidies and higher student loans. Further, the public itself hasn't seemed to catch on the fact that maybe sending Billy to Gerbil Accounting school is a bad idea. They are wedded to the idea that everyone should have a 4-year degree and can't swallow the idea that no only does everyone not need one, but some people actually shouldn't get one and should instead pursue a trade or work in a field that doesn't require one.
Another problem about cost is that schools do have to spend more on new facilities, better faculty, and so on. Obviously, a great deal of these things will improve their programs, but not all of them will. I brought up in other threads the limited utility of extravagant new dorms or expensive athletic programs as two examples of this. Private schools may do what they want with their money without justifying themselves to the broader public, but even public schools find it easy to justify un-justifiable (from an educational perspective) expenses.
I think some possible solutions to this problem are to be stricter on accreditation standards and to regulate degree programs. While many new degree programs do have to justify themselves as 'necessary' on some level, the current process has allowed too many schools and too many programs to exist that aren't serving the public.
I also think the entire student loan/grant system should be overhauled. We should throw out the current law that makes student loan debt the only (AFAIK) type of debt that can't discharged in bankruptcy. If loaning entities *know* they will get their money no matter what, there is essentially no risk in handing out larger and larger loans.
Further, I think we need to figure out a better way to ration grants. Currently, we ration grants from federal or state government with income limits and by capping the total award everyone can get. We also make re-training for a new profession extraordinarily expensive by disallowing grants for second degree students and grad students. I'm not sure quite how to tackle this, as I do feel everyone should be able to go to school for whatever they want and that it may be a bad idea for the government to 'pick and choose' which degrees would get higher grants for students and which should get lower grants. I would point out, though, that so long as states/the feds are subsidizing education at all, they should at least try and spend that money wisely. I see no reason why a history major is limited to the same grant awards as a Gerbil Accountant, and so on. Perhaps this could be tailored by region, so that where doctors are needed, more grants are given and where less are needed, less grants are given. But I don't really know as even this has problems.
*Access
Spoiler :
I think we actually do an OK job here of providing access to higher education. It may not be cheap, but it is available and there is lots of sources of financial aid. One thing that could help is better K-12 education, which is also needed for lots of other reasons. Specifically for higher ed, a better K-12 system will produce better students who have more options than they graduate. Currently, the only place an underperforming HS grad or GED grad can go is community college. It's great that they can do that, but those students spend years just working up to the college level (I did this myself, actually) which ends up putting a great deal of strain on the system and costs everyone more money. If K-12 students graduated at college level, then community colleges could spend far less resources on remedial education and more on college education, people will spend less time in remedial courses (and be less likely to drop out and more likely to go into their chosen field) and everyone wins.
*Educational Value
Spoiler :
I addressed a lot of this in the 'cost' section, but it's worth its own entry. As I said before, there are far too many low-quality schools and degree programs and ultimately too many useless degrees. I know downtown is going to be quick to point out that even the DeVry's of the educational market have their place. Maybe they do. But at what cost to the system as a whole for (oftentimes) marginal benefit? At some point we're cheapening the value of 4-year degrees altogether by putting out so many that shouldn't exist to begin with.
We should also put much more emphasis in trades at the community college level. Currently, the private market does good at this and community colleges on the whole do OK, but they could do better. We simply need to attract more students into trades they would excel at but will never join because they value the 'Gerbil Accountant' 4-year degree above all.
We should also put much more emphasis in trades at the community college level. Currently, the private market does good at this and community colleges on the whole do OK, but they could do better. We simply need to attract more students into trades they would excel at but will never join because they value the 'Gerbil Accountant' 4-year degree above all.
*Underperforming Students
Spoiler :
Realizing that higher ed problems don't always start in higher ed, we need to work to ensure that our K-12 system is graduating college-level or trade-entry level students. We don't and as I mentioned above, it's costing us dearly. I know that programs such as Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind are universally reviled in the K-12 systems. I would like to point out that while they were flawed, they at least began us searching for solutions. I think it's a big step forward that we are finally willing to experiment with a more or less moribund national priority that's been stagnant for decades. I would also like to point out that testing students, while it can lead to the dreaded 'teach to the test' syndrome, is still necessary to evaluate students. Clearly the process used in NCLB needed an improvement, and RTTT is (somewhat), but it wasn't a wasted exercise. More emphasis should be put into the actual teaching aspects of the classroom and we shouldn't be afraid to experiment.
I guess one point of discussion others can elaborate on is the role of unions in the process of K-12 improvement.
I guess one point of discussion others can elaborate on is the role of unions in the process of K-12 improvement.
*Institutional Inertia
Spoiler :
It's just hard as hell to make established institutions change. That's all I have to say about it and I'm hoping others have solutions. It's not always a best to change, but sometimes it is necessary. Given all of the other problems listed above, I think it is time to make serious changes across the board. But how do we get to there from here when you have thousands of colleges who are going to be reluctant to enact reform? How do you bring private institutions to heel when it's obvious their profit motives are stripping away vital resources from the entire system for no benefit?
*Outdated Curriculum
Spoiler :
So it's common place for freshmen to hear (at least in the technical fields, I know not the situation in LA/FA fields) 'what you are going to learn this semester was taught in grad school 10 years ago'. The pace of discovery is quickening and it's hard to give a student a cutting edge education in a chosen field in 4 years when the cutting edge is a moving target.
Schools like to deal with this by compression, cramming more subjects into each class every semester. They also like to add classes to degrees, but hit points where they have to trim back as it literally becomes impossible to graduate in 4 years after you've tacked on so many additional classes.
I think there are a couple of solutions, but every single one will be shot down by institutional inertia -
Move to a trimester schedule. Take away summer break and make summer a regular semester by moving around the break schedules so students still have a couple of weeks off here and there. I think this will be inevitable as we really are reaching a point where it's impossible to graduate students in 4 years with up-to-date degrees. It will mean we will all have to take more classes to graduate (that's happening anyways) but it will also mean we will stand a reasonable shot of getting out in 4 years, a goal that has become nearly unattainable for most students in technical fields.
Cut back on gen eds. This is undesirable as students should be well rounded. However, if they aren't going to extend the school year, then something has to give at some point or we'll be putting out students with less than adequate degrees. I'm ambivalent on this as I do feel some gen ed requirements/courses should be trimmed. But the devil is in the details as it's hard to figure out which courses are less valuable than others. Further, it becomes counter-productive at some point as (to use a techy example) engineers need to learn how to read, write and speak proficiently, etc.
Make community colleges mandatory. You could also try and make community/2-year college mandatory. I can envision a system where associate degrees are upgraded with a third year. You would spend the first 2 years covering your gen eds and the 3rd year covering entry-level courses from your chosen field. Then you would go to a university (if you want to - you can still leave school with an associates which would now be more valuable) for another 2 years mostly in your major.
So for my degree (Aerspace Engineering), it would work something like:
*2 years gen eds
*1 year Intro to Aero Vehicle design (an entry level (100-level) course with no need for a lab or special equipment), plus advanced programming and mathematics courses and basic engineering courses such as statics and dynamics. My degree demands the entire calculus sequence + differential equations + one more graduate level math course of your choice. Those aren't requirements of a lot of other degrees, but they are required before I moved on to more advanced Aerospace courses, so they would fit perfectly in a 3rd year at community college. Plus, most community colleges already offer most of those classes.
*2 years all aerospace courses. This would grant an entire extra year to cover additional material that would either be compressed, dropped or used to replace a gen ed in the current system.
Schools like to deal with this by compression, cramming more subjects into each class every semester. They also like to add classes to degrees, but hit points where they have to trim back as it literally becomes impossible to graduate in 4 years after you've tacked on so many additional classes.
I think there are a couple of solutions, but every single one will be shot down by institutional inertia -
Move to a trimester schedule. Take away summer break and make summer a regular semester by moving around the break schedules so students still have a couple of weeks off here and there. I think this will be inevitable as we really are reaching a point where it's impossible to graduate students in 4 years with up-to-date degrees. It will mean we will all have to take more classes to graduate (that's happening anyways) but it will also mean we will stand a reasonable shot of getting out in 4 years, a goal that has become nearly unattainable for most students in technical fields.
Cut back on gen eds. This is undesirable as students should be well rounded. However, if they aren't going to extend the school year, then something has to give at some point or we'll be putting out students with less than adequate degrees. I'm ambivalent on this as I do feel some gen ed requirements/courses should be trimmed. But the devil is in the details as it's hard to figure out which courses are less valuable than others. Further, it becomes counter-productive at some point as (to use a techy example) engineers need to learn how to read, write and speak proficiently, etc.
Make community colleges mandatory. You could also try and make community/2-year college mandatory. I can envision a system where associate degrees are upgraded with a third year. You would spend the first 2 years covering your gen eds and the 3rd year covering entry-level courses from your chosen field. Then you would go to a university (if you want to - you can still leave school with an associates which would now be more valuable) for another 2 years mostly in your major.
So for my degree (Aerspace Engineering), it would work something like:
*2 years gen eds
*1 year Intro to Aero Vehicle design (an entry level (100-level) course with no need for a lab or special equipment), plus advanced programming and mathematics courses and basic engineering courses such as statics and dynamics. My degree demands the entire calculus sequence + differential equations + one more graduate level math course of your choice. Those aren't requirements of a lot of other degrees, but they are required before I moved on to more advanced Aerospace courses, so they would fit perfectly in a 3rd year at community college. Plus, most community colleges already offer most of those classes.
*2 years all aerospace courses. This would grant an entire extra year to cover additional material that would either be compressed, dropped or used to replace a gen ed in the current system.
