Growing up in the late 20th century, I cannot imagine not having gone to university. Without it, I'd still live in a small village and probably doing some menial work in a factory or on a farm. I would not have had the experience of focussing on a subject for five years straight. I would not have had the experience of being able to reflect on society and my role in it. I would not have had the experience of discovering ideas far beyond my imagination during my teenage years.
Was it worth it? To me, certainly. To society at large? The society being a post-industrial society morphing into an information society, having yet another worker for factories or farms that do not need it, does not seem to be a good contribution. I went to university, and because of that I contributed in ways I would never have been able otherwise: I've taught in high school; I've done historical research at a university; and I've done research on how to better prepare our children for participation in the information society. But was it worth it?
To be honest—without being a reductionist—, my contributions to society are slim. Maybe I've effected one or two students in a way that will set them on a path true contribution to society. Maybe I've effected others to take a wrong turn. I don't know. And my research? In the end its target audience was a small research community and, although I've been cited enough, its impact is just a drop, if that at all.
But that is just me. I imagine that your stories and those of other who went to university are similar in a way. Our contributions might be tiny, but what about taking together all of our tiny contributions?
I grew up in an African village of 200, miles from anywhere and anything. I finished school but didn't go to university. Armed with that and my interest in computers I've managed to land jobs at both Microsoft and Nokia.
As ever, every example has a counter-example. I don't know which approach is right, but crazy grateful I didn't go through the American system. The cost strikes me as crippling.
I never went to HS or college. It's pretty easy to learn if you're motivated and have an internet connection. I have a high-paying career that I made for myself. Of course, whenever I bring this up people write me off as some kind of genius (I'm not) or some kind of exception. I'm really not. Yes, statistics show that going to college is correlated with more financial success than those who do not attend college. I suspect that has more to do with the demographics associated with those who attend college rather than what was learned in college.
Regardless, my problem with college is they take zero responsibility for their student's success while simultaneously employing rhetoric and advertising that tells kids that it will help them get a job. This is borderline fraud. Colleges should not be able to sell kids degrees on the idea that they will get a job with them whilst not actually accomplishing that.
What do I mean by taking responsibility for success? There are trade schools where if you don't get a job within X years you only owe a fraction of the tuition (or none at all).
In the information age and the knowledge society, unfortunately we don't need this industrial revolution legacy of boom in population growth to service factories and mines and the AI era and app economy would exacerbate the problem and squeeze more people.
We as humanity at a crossroads in our history as species and a civilization and we need to stand up to this challenge and conquer our problems and fears.
Finally, I must congratulate on your contributions to the progress of humanity, every good word counts and every good idea enriches out lives.
Really? The author is advocating extending universal testing to higher education? Because that's working so well in secondary schools... /s
Common core is a failure. The idea of extending that model to cover an even broader, more diverse set of subjects and topics is really poorly thought out. Who's going to design these tests? What professor is going to give a shit about them when their evaulations are based solely on research performance, not teaching? What top school with world-class faculty would ever agree to hamstring itself with a generic curriculum rather than let its experts teach what they know best?
I find that most people who bash the Common Core State Standards don't really understand them.
Why, exactly, do you feel that Common Core is a failure?
Education is one of the few areas that the state has clear, Constitutionally defined authority to manage over the federal government.
Yet, 46 out of 50 states have accepted the Common Core, which seems to me to be a tremendous success.
In my examination of the Common Core State Standards, I have found them to be thoughtfully designed, and a tremendous improvement over the fragmented and rambling state standards of old, at least in Illinois.
I find that most people who bash CCSS think that it's a method of teaching, rather than what it truly is: broad learning standards that give educators some general goal in which they can use any method to achieve.
Now, if I move my family to California, New York, or Wisconsin, these students should be working on roughly the same concepts.
This to me seems like a good thing.
Of course, there must be a reason why you think that they are a failure, and I am certainly willing to hear you out.
Right, it's like no child left behind for college kids. So small, private, and usually online colleges are taking advantage of poor people with access to subsidized tuition. I agree that's a problem, but creating a broad-spectrum standardized testing scheme is a completely wrong way to go about it. I don't know what the answer is, but some effort must be made to crack down on the for-profit diploma mills.
Too little is known about whether money spent in education is worth it, period. The US spends more on education per capita than almost all OECD countries, but performs worse on international metrics. What's the value proposition?
That isn't a helpful comparison if what we want to know is, will spending more in the US lead to better outcomes given our diverse, high ESL immigrant, large income gap, population. So a better thing to look at is, say, do test scores go up when we throw money at a low-performing US school? And the answer there is generally yes. Which, of course. Being able to afford quality ESL instructors would mean the world in rural Eastern Washington.
Is that per capita? The US is also one of the largest OECD countries in terms of population, so if not, it's a pretty meaningless statistic.
CS industry in general is a little bit strange because jobs are so plentiful and many of those jobs don't require particularly deep understanding of the core content of the scientific field. The same is not the case for e.g., mechanical engineering or medical professions.
A cushy introduction to living by oneself. My school built a new $60 million dollar gym two years ago that blows other gyms out of the water. I've got nice library's and computers to study on, cheap world class sports that can entertain me, and more. That's where a lot of the increased costs are going.
My honest belief is that learning is always worth the cost. If you're only going for a certificate/degree then it may bring little value. Being able to learn and fully grasp the subject matter and socializing with like-minded folks will always be worth the cost. How much a person is willing to spend greatly depends on the person's financial situation. Going into $200k+ debt may or may not be worth it for everyone.
I've spent hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for a course that I thought was very beneficial to me, and I'll gladly do it again as I find useful things to learn.
>More information would make the higher-education market work better.
Not by that much. Most graduates get jobs that their degrees are irrelevant to. Also, more selective universities will have better results than less selective ones even if they are merely equally good at teaching as less selective ones.
>Common tests, which students would sit alongside their final exams, could provide a comparable measure of universities’ educational performance. Students would have a better idea of what was taught well where, and employers of how much job candidates had learned.
There is no necessary connection to universities here. Why not just straight up separate teaching and testing? Why restrict taking these tests to people in their final year of university? P.Eng. exams are respected without being a university degree, like the Royal Statistical Societies certificates and diplomas.
The basis for the argument seems to be that, we do not do as well on international test but produce more cited research. Maybe the problem is that the international tests measure the wrong things from the wrong people? I can't see why teaching towards tests is necessary just given the arguments in this article, and my gut reaction having been processed through public schools full of standardized tests is utter revulsion at the thought that higher education math could be molded to fit the topics that some central authority chose.
One glaring problem with the proposal is that, even where we can expect university curricula have even treatment across universities (the hard sciences, say), university curricula simply are _not_ the same. Nor are the students who take them. Does anyone really think that courses taught at (say) regional universities and the students that get through them can be measured alongside the courses/students at top tier universities? That's unlikely. For one, the students were more or less uniformly measured going in and found to differ significantly. Second, I doubt the curricula are comparable in terms of depth and coverage (I can't prove it, of course, but my experience suggests that this is so).
To be clear, I am _not_ saying there are not good courses/universities outside the top tier. I know of some. But I think that on balance, my claim would hold up.
Interviews an ex rocker, coke addict, making $$$ starting for profit schools, who's latest endeavor (Hope University or some such nonsense) milks tuition grants from ex-cons and the homeless. University of Phoenixes are strategically located near freeway exits.
This is the real strategy. Phoenix looks at what the federal government needs and offers classes in those subjects. Students get federal loans to pay for it all. Money is funneled straight from US govt to Phoenix, with students on the hook for it.
Not worth the read with a clickbait title and only one mention of online courses.
> Online courses, which have so far failed to realise their promise of revolutionising higher education, would begin to make a bigger impact. The government would have a better idea of whether society should be investing more or less in higher education.
Many actions have diminishing returns, education included. The article asks some decent questions, but presents them as if they are not being already addressed. It is akin to asking is pollution bad without mentioning that there is recycling.
[+] [-] ht_th|11 years ago|reply
Was it worth it? To me, certainly. To society at large? The society being a post-industrial society morphing into an information society, having yet another worker for factories or farms that do not need it, does not seem to be a good contribution. I went to university, and because of that I contributed in ways I would never have been able otherwise: I've taught in high school; I've done historical research at a university; and I've done research on how to better prepare our children for participation in the information society. But was it worth it?
To be honest—without being a reductionist—, my contributions to society are slim. Maybe I've effected one or two students in a way that will set them on a path true contribution to society. Maybe I've effected others to take a wrong turn. I don't know. And my research? In the end its target audience was a small research community and, although I've been cited enough, its impact is just a drop, if that at all.
But that is just me. I imagine that your stories and those of other who went to university are similar in a way. Our contributions might be tiny, but what about taking together all of our tiny contributions?
[+] [-] Spearchucker|11 years ago|reply
As ever, every example has a counter-example. I don't know which approach is right, but crazy grateful I didn't go through the American system. The cost strikes me as crippling.
[+] [-] dreamdu5t|11 years ago|reply
Regardless, my problem with college is they take zero responsibility for their student's success while simultaneously employing rhetoric and advertising that tells kids that it will help them get a job. This is borderline fraud. Colleges should not be able to sell kids degrees on the idea that they will get a job with them whilst not actually accomplishing that.
What do I mean by taking responsibility for success? There are trade schools where if you don't get a job within X years you only owe a fraction of the tuition (or none at all).
[+] [-] timepiece|11 years ago|reply
We as humanity at a crossroads in our history as species and a civilization and we need to stand up to this challenge and conquer our problems and fears.
Finally, I must congratulate on your contributions to the progress of humanity, every good word counts and every good idea enriches out lives.
Thank you for all!
[+] [-] shmageggy|11 years ago|reply
Common core is a failure. The idea of extending that model to cover an even broader, more diverse set of subjects and topics is really poorly thought out. Who's going to design these tests? What professor is going to give a shit about them when their evaulations are based solely on research performance, not teaching? What top school with world-class faculty would ever agree to hamstring itself with a generic curriculum rather than let its experts teach what they know best?
What a terrible idea.
[+] [-] Donzo|11 years ago|reply
I find that most people who bash the Common Core State Standards don't really understand them.
Why, exactly, do you feel that Common Core is a failure?
Education is one of the few areas that the state has clear, Constitutionally defined authority to manage over the federal government.
Yet, 46 out of 50 states have accepted the Common Core, which seems to me to be a tremendous success.
In my examination of the Common Core State Standards, I have found them to be thoughtfully designed, and a tremendous improvement over the fragmented and rambling state standards of old, at least in Illinois.
I find that most people who bash CCSS think that it's a method of teaching, rather than what it truly is: broad learning standards that give educators some general goal in which they can use any method to achieve.
Now, if I move my family to California, New York, or Wisconsin, these students should be working on roughly the same concepts.
This to me seems like a good thing.
Of course, there must be a reason why you think that they are a failure, and I am certainly willing to hear you out.
[+] [-] TheBeardKing|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nmrm2|11 years ago|reply
CS industry in general is a little bit strange because jobs are so plentiful and many of those jobs don't require particularly deep understanding of the core content of the scientific field. The same is not the case for e.g., mechanical engineering or medical professions.
[+] [-] markpundmann|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdudek|11 years ago|reply
I've spent hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for a course that I thought was very beneficial to me, and I'll gladly do it again as I find useful things to learn.
[+] [-] haihaibye|11 years ago|reply
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/the_magic_of_ed....
[+] [-] barry-cotter|11 years ago|reply
Not by that much. Most graduates get jobs that their degrees are irrelevant to. Also, more selective universities will have better results than less selective ones even if they are merely equally good at teaching as less selective ones.
>Common tests, which students would sit alongside their final exams, could provide a comparable measure of universities’ educational performance. Students would have a better idea of what was taught well where, and employers of how much job candidates had learned.
There is no necessary connection to universities here. Why not just straight up separate teaching and testing? Why restrict taking these tests to people in their final year of university? P.Eng. exams are respected without being a university degree, like the Royal Statistical Societies certificates and diplomas.
[+] [-] mattnewton|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ElectricFeel|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] skalawag|11 years ago|reply
To be clear, I am _not_ saying there are not good courses/universities outside the top tier. I know of some. But I think that on balance, my claim would hold up.
[+] [-] judk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vijayr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madengr|11 years ago|reply
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/
Interviews an ex rocker, coke addict, making $$$ starting for profit schools, who's latest endeavor (Hope University or some such nonsense) milks tuition grants from ex-cons and the homeless. University of Phoenixes are strategically located near freeway exits.
[+] [-] mjklin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swehner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roguecoder|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delecti|11 years ago|reply
How many homes were "worth" more in 2007 than in 2009?
[+] [-] fwn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wahlis|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thuuuomas|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] littletimmy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrdrozdov|11 years ago|reply
> Online courses, which have so far failed to realise their promise of revolutionising higher education, would begin to make a bigger impact. The government would have a better idea of whether society should be investing more or less in higher education.
[+] [-] dang|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jkot|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrdrozdov|11 years ago|reply