Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Economics of College: Part III
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Why does college cost so much?

There are two basic reasons. The first is that people will pay what the colleges charge. The second is that there is little incentive for colleges to reduce the tuition they charge.

Those who want the government to provide subsidies to help meet the high cost of college seem not to consider whether government subsidies might have contributed to the high cost of college in the first place.

In any kind of economic transaction, it seldom makes sense to charge prices so high that very few people can afford to pay them. But, with the government ready to step in and help whenever tuition is "unaffordable," why not charge more than the traffic will bear and bring in Uncle Sam to make up the difference?

The president of a small college once told me that, if he charged tuition that was affordable, even an institution the size of his would lose millions of dollars of government money every year.

In a normal market situation, each competing enterprise has an incentive to lower prices if that would attract business away from competitors and increase its profits.

Unfortunately, the academic world is not a normal market situation.

Some of the ways of cutting costs that a business might use are not available to a college or university because of restrictions by the accrediting agencies and the American Association of University Professors.

There was a time, back in the early 1960s, when my academic career began, when many -- if not most -- colleges had their faculty teaching 12 semester hours and a few had teaching loads of 15 semester hours.

Spending even 15 hours a week in a classroom may not seem like a lot to people who spend 35 or 40 hours a week on the job. However, there is also the time required to prepare lectures, grade tests and do other miscellaneous campus chores.

Even so, 12 hours a week in a classroom is not a killing pace, especially for professors who have taught a few years and have their lecture notes from previous years to help prepare for the current year's classes.

But that was then and this is now. Today, a teaching load of more than 6 semester hours is considered sweatshop labor on many campuses.

Incidentally, since academic class hours are 50 minutes long, 6 semester hours mean actually 5 hours a week in the classroom.

Why was it considered necessary to cut the teaching load in half? Mainly because professors were expected to do more research.

Why was more research considered necessary? Because research brings in more money from the government, from foundations and from other sources.

On many campuses, a beginning faculty member cannot expect to be promoted to a tenure position unless he or she brings research money into the campus coffers.

Once 6 semester hours of teaching becomes the norm, an individual college that tried to economize by having its faculty teach 9 or 12 semester hours could run into trouble with the American Association of University Professors and the accrediting agencies.

The University of Colorado law school had its accreditation by the American Bar Association put in jeopardy simply because they did not spend enough money on books for their law library -- even though their students passed the bar exam on the first try at a higher rate than the law students at Harvard and Yale.

The criteria used by most accrediting agencies are based on inputs -- essentially spending -- rather than results for students.

Competition among academic institutions therefore seldom takes the form of lowering their costs of operation, in order to lower tuition. The incentives are all the other way.

Competition often takes the form of offering more upscale amenities -- posh lounges, bowling alleys, wi-fi, finer dorms.

None of this means better education. But, so long as the customers keep buying it -- with government help -- the colleges will keep selling it.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Damn! The point I'd just made...
--
...in a "Comments" remark appended to Dr. Sowell's previous column on the economics of college.

Take away government measures to enable increasing student tuition expenditures - which essentially equates to a sort of price support program - and colleges will have to cut their spending and their charges to maintain market share.

--

Bit of a letdown Doc
We know anything run by the government has screwed up incentives. I wanted to hear more about your great ideas from part II.

I was picturing all the venture capitalists hounding the superstar academics the way college football recruiters get players.

I consider all my time and effort spent pursuing sheepskins wasted time and money for the most part. I wound up working in a job far different then what I envisioned and was earning three times what the career I originally wanted paid. Many others are successful in this career with only high school diplomas. Oh well. I wouldn't change it. Knowledge is good in its own right.


and books, too
Don't forget all those brand new, latest edition, $135 text books required for each and every class. The Prof may or may not refer to it.

Yttrium - Don't forget equipment...
--
...mandated by course requirements.

I recall a bloody expensive (even though second-hand) binocular microscope I was required to purchase and maintain through the first two years of medical school.

Despite the fact that my interpupillary distance exceeds 76mm, making it impossible for me to *USE* a binocular microscope as such without even more costly modification.

I sold the damned thing like a shot the minute I could and picked up (much more cheaply) an ancient but perfectly adequate monocular 'scope I've used ever since.

And don't get me started about the bloody required textbooks - out of date by no less than two years by the time of their publication - and badly organized for the inculcation and retention of critical information.

I don't know about the textbooks assigned in "...psychology, sociology, anthropology, or any of the other wacko-and-wog disciplines" (thank you, P.J. O'Rourke), but most of the stuff I was required to buy for my science courses as an undergraduate and in *EVERY* area in medical school were as bloody nigh completely useless as can be imagined.

Thank God for Pansky & House, and for the whole Lange "Current" series, then and now.

None of which, of course, are ever assigned as mandatory reading by any salaried tenured instructor I've ever encountered, damn their eyes.

--

SJ Doc
What a racket. Worse than I thought. :)

But what is up with that $5 cafeteria bagel? And those asprin never EVER work?



Teaching load and research
Light teaching loads (1 to 3 classes per semester) has become standard for most tenure track professors. This allows the professor to do more research.

The sad thing is that most professors and most research published provide very little value to society (in most cases probably no value to society). Most research is nothing more than busy work taking up millions of academic journal pages that nearly no one reads.

Because of the basic laws of distributions and marginality, only a small percentage of professors have the talent to publish research that meaningfully furthers human understanding. The vast majority of professors are wasting their time, and society’s money publishing anything.

The vast majority of professors would provide much more value in exchange for their paycheck if they thought of themselves as instructors instead of researchers. This would simultaneously reduce the cost of education and likely improve the quality of teaching because most professors would be focusing on teaching instead of publishing.

I remember one professor I knew personally say “colleges exist for the benefit of professors so they can do research”. This professor was a nice guy, but did not have much of a reputation for teaching. I looked at the list of his research publications and not a single article was of substance. His entire professional career was dedicated to pointless busy work, and he seemed content with it.

Yttrium - Are you a Poul Anderson fan?
--
Asks Yttrium:

"But what is up with that $5 cafeteria bagel? And those asprin never EVER work?"


First, aspirin is almost never ordered in the hospital (except in 81- or 162-mg "mini" doses to reduce platelet aggregation), if it's ordered at all. As an analgesic and a febrifuge, acetaminophen is overwhelmingly preferred.

As for the "$5 cafeteria bagel," well....

Remember the motto of the Polesotechnic League?

"All the traffic will bear!"


Nicholas van Rijn - and his Solar Spice and Liquors Company - apparently got the franchise for those cafeterias, making for a marked improvement in quality (you don't remember what they used to be like in the '60s and '70s, do you?) but a commensurate increase in price, even adjusting for the Federal Reserve's currency debauchment.

Well, that's Old Nick for you.



--

The Economics Part III
Dr. Sowell you hit the nail on the head again. Case in point the "great actor" Professor Cornell West. When was the last time he taught a class, he's always on the Bill Maher show making these outlandishly untrue statements about poor people in America, and nobody on the panel challenges him about them.
What timely and brilliant societal research has he done, other than appear in the Matrix series, and sucked up to Hugo "I like a black liberal professor with afro" Chavez.
I think he would do very well teaching special ed in high school.

Good one left out another reason.
That is someone must pay for all the "underprivilidged" students that attend for free.

Dr. Sowell is exactly correct
"Why was more research considered necessary? Because research brings in more money from the government, from foundations and from other sources"

Government funding always encourages high cost and low quality anything. Now TAs do alot of undergrad teaching and often research. With the assurance of research funding, many profs have boarded the Something for Nothing train a long time ago.

College degree today shows only
that students can learn to mimic the thoughts, words, and deeds of some aging hippies who found themselves a nice setup for the rest of their lives at the expense of others. PEOPLE! Are you going to let these folks control YOUR children? They are pretty good at it.

All the Traffic will Subsidize
Currently Singapore is trying to entice people to the first F1 race under the lights, and their hotels have increased hotel rats by three to five times normal. Not surprisingly, the hotels are getting far more complaints than reservations; some hotels are at 20% occupancy.

During the run-up to the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, the luxury high-rise in which I rented an apartment raised our rent by $300 per month with the fevered dream of emptying the place so it could rent our apartments to *foreigners* for $900 per WEEK. I am happy to report that they did not rent a single apartment to anybody during the entire Olympics.

Finally, during the first acquisition I was sucked into, when a large firm swallowed up our small firm, the management tried to SELL leftover party food to the secretaries. We asked what they would do with it if we did not buy, and they said they would throw it out. We told them to throw it out.

Absent subsidies or government meddling, prices will reflect what the traffic will bear. I say take away all the Goodies and see what the traffic will bear.

AudiR10
Great Atlanta story. In the midst of the real estate bust, I have to admit a perverse pleasure at seeing all the speculators and house flippers getting stuck holding the bag ("what do you MEAN I can't sell this property for a 100% return two years after I bought it ?!)

As one who's currently trying to get a kid through her last two years of college (hey, I never wanted to retire anyway), I often wonder what would happen if there were no subsidized loans, grants and so forth. Would all these colleges shut their doors, or would they find a way to make it work?

For that matter, what if the Federal and State governments, instead of withholding money from payrolls, had to just bill everyone annually or quarterly, like the local governments do with property taxes. There would be a revolt in this country to rival 1776!


idle speculations, continued...
Could you imagine, millions of people receiving Federal tax bills on a quarterly basis, "please remit $5500 within 30 days from the date of this notice..." , followed by a state tax bill a few days later.

Anyway, while I'm happy to see my daughter in college and doing well, it's hard to believe that the education she's getting today at a public university is that much better than what I got 30 years ago at a private one, at about 1/10 of the price.

In the previous column...
by Dr. Sowell he made a good point about selling stock in a college student to lending institutions for a percentage of their future income. Funny thing is the government is doing that through taxes. The more you earn the higher the return for the government. Talk about win-lose.

I still believe that we have an over abundance of higher education. The entrance requirements should be raised to reduce the numbers of college students so that the really bright students get the education and not a dumbed down education. Secondly, if colleges are chasing research dollars why don't they focus on true research and not confuse the situation with having to 'teach' 6 credit hours.

A great series by Dr. Sowell. Many thanks.

another reason
Since schools and universities are competing for all of this money (and grants from their alumni) there are almost always construction cranes around building new facilities or upgrading. The new buildings will usually have the name of the foundation or company that is the majority donor, meaning that they get a public relations plus. Not that the mid-aged buildings wouldn't do the job, but a mix of the brand-new and the old-and-ivy-covered looks better, and everyone knows that the packaging is more important than the content, right? ;-)

Thank you Dr Sowell

A final call that the Emporor has no clothes and thinks he got away with it.

The internet has the most promise for real competition and the University of Colorado Law School should fight back.

Lisa has it right ...
... because the government that is funding research doesn't fear competition. But, brick and mortar universities will respond to competition for students from more economical online universities.

You don't need bricks and mortar to be in the business of ideas. Virginia universities already use audio and video links to deliver college courses to rural students.

I differ with Dr. Sowell on one point. Teaching professors don't do all the outside the classroom work he mentions at all schools. As a Student Assistant, I graded papers and was a "gofer" to free these guys & gals time for research.


Ridiculous tuition
My buddy has a niece that went to Columbia for a nursing degree - well now she has it AND a $150K bill to pay. This is a ridiculous amount of money for which she will be paying years and much of the alleged better living she is making will go to pay this assinine tuition. I never went to college - don't regret the fact either. I know and have worked with some of these "graduates" and their parents or they really wasted their money. The ultimate sadness is these same people are inculcated into the liberal mindset and for some it sticks.

Ridiculous tuition # 2
In addition to the nursing degree this niece also has degrees in Biology from Vermont and a Liberal Arts Degree to boot. The woman is 32 years old and has spent most of her adult life in college. What a waste - she is trying to "find herself" and this is just a big fat crock. Mommie and Daddy paid for the first two and see what it got them. Nobody will do a damn thing about it - you know that folks. Nobody has the guts or resources to go up against academe now do they?

bolivar writes:
'Nobody will do a damn thing about it - you know that folks. Nobody has the guts or resources to go up against academe now do they?'

You are exactly right. Give the man a cigar. No one will radically change anything that has a significant impact on the economy. If you developed a drug that would cure all cancer it would be hidden faster than you could say Jack Robinson. If a person developed an absolutely cheap form of unlimited energy it would never see the light of day. About a third of our economy is tied to health care and energy. Talk about the third rail of politics and given that most politicians are cowards you have a situation where nothing will change of any significance.

Accreditation only part of problem
“This report http://www.goacta.org/publications/Reports/accrediting.pdf concludes with a number of recommendations. First, the connection between eligibility for government student aid and accreditation should be severed. Second, trustees should become more active in the accreditation process. Third, state governments should bring needed competition to the field of accreditation by requiring that their colleges and universities solicit bids for accrediting services, just as they would for any other sort of service. Finally, the accreditation associations should start acting in a manner more akin to business consultants than monopolies.”

The report also concludes that accreditation relies on inputs rather than quality of education.

But the main problem is that higher ed in America is a monopoly ... much like the Detroit auto makers had before imports.

Ignorance On Display
The entire discussion is devoid of higher education awareness. For one thing, no distinction is made between public and private institutions, nor among comprehensive, doctoral or research institutions. No mention is made of the difference between graduate and undergraduate teaching loads. No indication of what this massive federal support actually amounts to. No discussion of the value of research. And no discussion of the benefits of having education available to all.

The proportion of college costs covered by the federal government has not increased over the last 20 years. In fact, it has declined dramatically. College tuitions have not risen because of federal support, they have risen despite the fact that federal support has remained stagnant.

Salaries
I am not sure that I fully agree with the points he makes. There are thousands of colleges in this country, and they compete against one another. If government subsidizes college, that might increase the demand for college, but what is to prevent new colleges from opening their doors to absorb that additional demand, thereby driving the tuition rates back down? And since they do compete against each other, if one college utilizes inefficient policies, what is to prevent another more efficient college from eating its lunch?

I think the main reason that college is so expensive is that it's a very labor intensive industry. While much of the rest of the US economy has experienced productivity gains resulting from technology or capital improvements, colleges really have not benefited much from that. Teachers still teach the way they did years ago, for the most part, yet their salaries must keep pace with the market generally, or the better ones will find other employment. Inevitably, that leads to higher costs, which must be passed on to the students.

Dems and Entitlement
Aren't there (at least) three implicit assumptions usually found in the arguments about "affordable tuition"?

1. That some [large indeterminable] number of people "should" be able to attend college whenever they want to, i.e. attendance is an entitlement, even if it can be shown that a degree in Women's Studies (and many other fluff programs) has no market value, and

2. That for some inexplicable reason attendance must occur immediately upon graduation from high school, and

3. That colleges and universities should be exempt from downsizing, as opposed to other businesses which always face this threat if their market and revenues won't support the operating expense burden.

Drop all of these assumptions and take a fresh look at the situation. What you will see (in large part) are inefficient bureaucracies pretending to be noble institutions operating on government subsidies in order to provide useless products to customers who cannot afford and do not need them. Not too surprising, I suppose, when one considers that the majority of university administrators and faculty vote Democratic. There is a pervasive stench of socialism in the halls of academe.

Dave
One point you need to think about, and Sowell touched on, is the accreditation process.

Accreditation is faculty driven. If you want higher-level accreditation, you need to jump the hoops set by people with faculty interests in mind.

I was a college that was trying to step up a level in accreditation… and all of the emphasis was on PhD counts, light teaching loads, and article counts. Not a single glance was made evaluating student outcomes.

right on one point.
Sowell is right that tuition subsidies mess up the financial incentives for colleges and probably play a significant role in driving up tuition. Although it does not automatically follow that the current system is worse than the system would be without such subsidies, only that they are not magically better. But then all such economic comparisons can only be done by looking at how things actually play out. The idea that we can determine these economic decisions a priori is silly.

Sowell also makes the claim that the reason for the focus on research and so light teaching loads is that research brings in money. As above, this is not the kind of thing that should be concluded a priori. And in this case there is a simple test available. While research in the sciences brings in a lot of money, research in the humanities generally does not. So is the teaching load different for people in areas in which the research is given away free than for those people in areas in which research leads to profitable grants and patents? As it turns out, the answer is no. So Sowell is wrong.

The actual explanation is that Universities place a high value on research as part of their mission. And the reputation that comes from research success is of value to the universities.

Jack
An interesting point comes out of your statements.

It is amazing how so many colleges drive their faculty to publish and care less about teaching… regardless of the college’s station in life. The vast majority of professors are publishing page-fillers, instead of focusing on teaching.

Also keep in mind… a marginal factor can greatly influence a system. Small subsidies can exert an undue influence.

Examples – the federal gvt provides a small part of local school funding, but nearly controls the entire conversation. The school-board knows they can count on local funding, so a huge part of their effort goes into pleasing the federal bureaucrats.

Example – welfare pays people a pittance. They can easily find a job that pays more than welfare, yet many many people get stuck on welfare because it is the bird-in-hand.

A person with average mental and physical abilities can easily work their way out of poverty by just showing up to work for several years. Showing up will give them skills by osmosis and seniority. Yet they still get trapped in large numbers by welfare.

even affects community colleges
I was the faculty union president at a California community college (but I'm conservative Republican and part time faculty).

Faculty negotiate their raises with the local college district. There was no cost incentive because student tuition covers only a slight percentage of actual costs, while the state pays the rest -- the faculty and district merely transferred the cost to the taxpayers of the entire state of California. (There are some controls, but they're not particularly effective)

Greed is a factor as well. Our staff (non faculty employees) are underpaid. Thinking $90 grand for a twenty hour a week 10 month a year job was pretty good (to be fair, that's the high end -- average is over forty), I proposed we drop our COLA proposal by one percent, which would have allowed classified an additional two percent--you would have thought the apocalypse was coming. SO much for all those good Marxists and their green party two SUV driving sympathy for the working class.

Gee, now we're in a budget crisis. Wonder why?

Women's Studies Majors
A number of postings have referenced such courses of study as Women's Studies or whatever. These programs are often referenced by people who don't know anything about higher education as if they are somehow representative of higher ed in general.

In fact, teh number of graduates in such programs is minuscule. The largest field of study, by far, is business followed by education and health professions.

The most populated of any liberal arts type degree is English, with only 4% of all majors. The next, sociology,is 2%.

One of the things they teach you in higher educaiton, if you pay attention, is that the kind of generalizations being made here are meaningless.

Furthermore, ten years out of school, those who earned an academic degree are as happy with their salary, benefits, and future prospects as those in career oreinted majors. Their salaries are a bit lower, an average of 2%, but nothing of great significance.


Sweet Deal for the Elitests 'Perfessors'
How sweet a deal is this...5 hours in the classroom rehashing notes from previous years, getting graduate students as slaves to do your research and classroom work while you take time out to become more Elitest and Liberal. It's no wonder these 'Perfessors' are removed from reality. I say put them back to work on an hourly scale, no class room work no pay. Let them do their research on their own time. Maybe then they would hook up with reality and viola, all of a sudden see the total stupidity of Liberalism.

Free market is always the solution
Be it education or healthcare when the government puts his political nose in any sector the prices are sure to go up and the quality of services sure to go down.


JohnnyP
You have made the same error as Sowell. You are not considering in any way the differences between institutions. Not only do the broad categories differ widely, but individual institutions are idiosyncratic to an amazing degree. Do you differentiate between public and private? 4 and 2 year? There are institutions which focus on teaching and those that focus on research: which ones are you talking about?

I won't bother to challenge your unfounded concerns about welfare here, as they are pretty much irrelevant to the topic.





Same as the Medical Industry?
Isn't the same at our medical fasilities? They don't advertise lower rates, just better and broader services and nicer facilities.

Jack
I have taught at a 4 year private school and a two year tech school. My brother has taught at 4 and 2 year public and private schools.

2 year schools are materially different in approach... they do focus mainly on teaching.

4 year schools however, tend to discount teaching and students... that is from what I know.

I do not see the point you are trying to make.

English as a major
I knew a girl who majored in English in college. The last I saw her, a few years after we both graduated from college, she was an hourly employee in the Borders store in our hometown. I'm not sure which courses she took in the English department helped her most in her job.

I think parents, teachers and guidance counselors need to ask their students planning to go to college these questions:

Where do you want to go?
How much is tuition?
What will your major be?

and the really important ones:

What will you do with your major when you graduate from college?
How much do you expect to make in your first job?

What a novel idea . . .
for Dr. Sowell to suggest that going to college should be a personal responsibility based on sound economic principles and consequences.

I'm being sarcastic, of course.

When I was searching for a university in 1986, I had to not only find money, but how to pay back the money, and that ultimate dictated where I should go and what I should study. Too many people these days expect to be sent to college, either by their parents or by taxpayers. These same people are mainly studying useless topics that sound great and intelligent on paper, but not useful for society.

One interesting fact to observe is that as privileged American kids are to go to college and many are attending top notch schools, the American technology sector is increasingly depending on foreign talent for their development and growth. Why should parents or society pick up the tab for our future college grads when we have no inkling as to what they could do for our society or for themselves?

One would hope that with all the money being poured into American universities, there should be a more deliberate goal to push for more rigorous education in math and science. Shouldn't we as a nation look for ways to safeguard our future in the technology market as well as the defense market as well?

This Dr. Sowell guy should be published more widely. However, I'm afraid that he'd be dismissed quickly by the majority in the press as a greedy conservative, anti-education, anti-poor, and un-American.


Right Dave
Here we are in 2008. Why are we still using methods from the 800's?

We have technology! Let's use it. (CD's, DVD's, S/W, video streaming, ...)

I needed to learn a new Computer language. I could have gone to the university and for several thousand dollars been taught the language.

Instead, I bought a CD/DVD for less than $100 and learned it in a matter of weeks.

Who needs the universities when we have technology that can do it better and cheaper? Besides, most of the professors do not give a #### about teaching and it shows.

So, we pay ~40K per year to be taught by people that hate to teach. Many are taught by TAs that cannot even speak english!

Education has to evolve. Imagine all these "smart people" running the University and they cannot put together cost efficient programs for the students. Instead they would rather pick their pocket. ... Nice

In other words.....
Royce&Roll says: "Free market is always the solution"

or in a more non-PC way of putting it, (my specialty) "Everything the government touches turns to crap."

Jack writes:
Jack,
I think the point most of us are making is simple. We don't need to understand that a small percentage of education is working when the vast majority of it is corrupt. Your examples serve as ways to understand how to fix the majority but in the final analysis when 90% of something is broken the 10% that isn't is just noise.

Ah, yes, salaries
Someone mentioned salaries in the labor-intensive field of academia.

There was a flap a few years ago over the new president of one of the University of California schools, and a choice she made about her housing (and I believe the university employment of her lesbian live-in). I had no real interest in her domestic arrangements, but what struck me was that her salary as president was over $400K a year.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who defends that salary level for a university president should be automatically throttled if he even looks like he's going to complain about executive compensation in private industry.

I also note that I don't HAVE to contribute to any private executive's salary. I have the option of avoiding his product. But the law compels me to contribute to the salaries of the University of California presidents. Therefore, even if I were the most illiterate and unschooled of California taxpayers, I would be entitled to an opinion on the value of the university presidents' work, the quality of their product, and whether they are overpaid.

moses writes:
'Who needs the universities when we have technology that can do it better and cheaper?'

Exactly right! Only you didn't take it far enough. Apply your line of thinking to all schools. Why pay school administrators and all the overhead involved when technology could assist caring parents in the role of educating their children? You do not need fancy schools to teach children how to read, write and do simple math. Home schooling is a success and needs to become the model for improving the so called free public education system. From what I have seen the public schools are to deeply involved in indoctrination to be trusted with our children.

Ah, the horrible truth comes out
Deacon writes: "... From what I have seen the public schools are to deeply involved in indoctrination to be trusted with our children."

This is the core issue. Notwithstanding the corrupt education system at most Universities and some Colleges, we have the corruption of our children' minds by these Marxists in "teaching positions".

This is right out of Karl Marx' Manafesto...take over institutions, indoctrinate the young...I invite you to look at what is happening in this country, you need no further evidence of what the 'real' problem is! The sorry sad side effect is that in order to indoctrinate children (including college students with skulls full of mush) is that they need to be re-programmed first...what better way than to confuse them with pathetic education practices then fill their heads with crap straight from Karl Marx.

Bottom line, unless this whole Education system is totally restructured, including the purging of the Marxists, this country is doomed to a slow painful death.

uh...Jack
Research is fine and dandy...but let me tell you about the Maglev train at my alma mater. 16+ million dollars later, a transition from being a campus transportation solution to purely a research project, and the rail structure lies dormant since project inception in 2001 (initial debut was scheduled for '02). It is an absolute #*&^@-ing debacle. The maglev car has not moved since '06 and I believe it has since been relocated to another maglev project out of state. Nobody wants to take credit (or blame, more precisely). The state loaned the university and its private partner corporation 7 mil to bail the project out in '03. How else do you think the state and the university are going to recoup the funding?

This is a glaring example of college's pissing away grant and tuition money on absurd projects. They actually thought it feasible to construct a high speed transport for a campus a little over a mile wide! Apparently, somebody sold them on the idea that a Maglev light rail was "greener" than bicycles or hoofing it.

Google "Old Dominion Mag Lev" if you are interested.

All around my area the local colleges are building more and grander buildings and jacking their tuition up. Compare to actual businesses. Walmart doesn't jack their prices up every time they build a new store! The local community college here has gone from $50 per credit hour in 2002 (when I attended) to over $

You in particular are trying to paint anyone who demands some accountability from our higher education institutions as anti-education. None of us are anti-education, we're anti-ignorance, which seems only to proliferate rapidly on our campuses.

AudiR10
I wouldn't to to Singapore either if the hotels had increased the number of "rats" by five fold. Who wants to stay in a vermin infested hotel?

Didn't finish a sentence in prior post.
The local community college here has gone from $50 per credit hour in 2002 (when I attended) to over $90 /hr.



Profit
"Great Atlanta story. In the midst of the real estate bust, I have to admit a perverse pleasure at seeing all the speculators and house flippers getting stuck holding the bag ("what do you MEAN I can't sell this property for a 100% return two years after I bought it ?!)"
Too bad there are many incentives and few deterrents for elected officials to bail out these speculators.

I'm a Sowell fan, but...
did I miss something or does Dr. Sowell not work at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University anymore? If he still does, I have a hard time agreeing with some of the ides in this series and the cheerleading for Dr. Sowell. I understand that the HI is not primarily funded through tuition or governmental grants, but it is funded by tax-exempt contributions and endowments, which sounds like governmental subsidy to me. I wonder if those donations would keep pouring in if the tax deduction went away. And as far as tangible results, the HI, by its own admission, produces none. Their mission is to gather knowledge, generate ideas, and share both in the hopes that the public and policy will be influenced by them. Again, I like Sowell and many of his ideas, but it seems a little foolish to bite the hands that feed you and expect them to continue providing the grub. How many of you would have ponied up for that "corporate bond" Dr. Sowell speaks of in the previous installment if his stated career path at 18 would be "senior fellow at a think tank?"

JohnnyP
The point, johnny, is this:

No one in the conversation is addressing the differences between types of schools; they just talk about something they call college, without understanding it. Two year schools, which enroll a sizeable portion of the college going population, focus on teaching, Right? In addition, a significant number of mid-level schools also focus on teaching: having worked in them I an fully aware of the attention paid to the topic. And finally, in every institution, no matter what its focus, there are terrific teachers.

Thus, the conversation here is driven by an underlying assumption about colleges and Universities that is largely incorrect.

Stairmaster
You say you began school in 1986. You must have forgotten a lot, because almost nothing you wrote has any validity. Specifically:

"Too many people these days expect to be sent to college, either by their parents or by taxpayers. These same people are mainly studying useless topics that sound great and intelligent on paper, but not useful for society"

First off, it is the offical national policy that education is a family responsibility. I have no problem with that. More importantly, however, I am not aware of any data which would support your claim that student on financial aid disproportionately select majors that are not "useful". DO you have any, or are you just makign a baseless claim?

You also wrote: "One would hope that with all the money being poured into American universities, there should be a more deliberate goal to push for more rigorous education in math and science."

There is a tremendous effort directed at STEM fields. You appear to be unware of them. Even so, I don't know what you mean by "all the money". The yearly amount of money devoted to higher education by the federal government wouldn't pay for a week of the meaningless war in Iraq.







Mick
You write:" Jack,
I think the point most of us are making is simple. We don't need to understand that a small percentage of education is working when the vast majority of it is corrupt. Your examples serve as ways to understand how to fix the majority but in the final analysis when 90% of something is broken the 10% that isn't is just noise."

As I have said to others, if you are going to discuss an academic issue, it's best to have legit information. Claiming that the vast majority of higher education is "corrupt" is just midless blather absent some sort of evidence. And none has been presented.

JcThomas
Let me start at the end.

You write: "You in particular are trying to paint anyone who demands some accountability from our higher education institutions as anti-education. None of us are anti-education, we're anti-ignorance, which seems only to proliferate rapidly on our campuses."

This is absolutely untrue. I am all for accountability in higher education, and I can give you a laundry list of ways it needs to either be instituted or improved. But I haven't read any calls for accountability. I have read a bunch of whining, almost entirely based on anecdote or complete misinformation. How can one demand accountability of a system about which one knows virtually nothing?

Accountability? At last count I have asked 5 people in this three part thread for information or data to back up their claims. Not a single person has provided any. Why would higher ed be accountable to people who aren't even accountable for providing evidence to back up their claims?

And I mean evidence, not anecdote. For every Maglev Train case you can name, I can find a dozen cases like a Jonas Salk at the University of Pittsburgh creating a polio vaccine. How do you think those two balance out?









Jack
You accuse everyone else of making assumptions, I don't see that you are doing anything different.

How do see your computer monitor to read the comments with your nose so high in the air? I'm appalled that you have the asinine opinion that people can pay for a system, rely on administrators like you to run it (shoddily) and then when you and your academic buddies have screwed us over claim we don't know how the system works, so we should defer judgment to you, but by all means keep the money coming.

If the colleges were run like corporations, we shareholders would have revolted and every one of you would be on the street. I'd be buying Slurpees at the local 7-11 from Ivy League grads.

You have no response to the premise of all three articles in the series, that there is no fiscal accountability in academia, because the universities are dragging on the teet of government.

LeftRudyRight
Sowell's current position description could be "Chief Phone Answerer" and it would still have been a good investment for private individuals to subsidize his education -- because of the work he has produced, both in his teaching days and as an economic historian and theorist.

It's not the tax-exempt status of academic trusts that distorts the cost and value of education, by shielding them from market evaluation -- and the distortion is what Sowell is discussing. To a large extent, the distorting factor is public policy that increasingly promises to guarantee the opportunity of a 4-year degree, with public money behind the guarantee.

You can argue, if you want, that there would be more public money to put behind the guarantee if academic trusts paid taxes, but that's a separate argument and has no bearing on Sowell's.

One point, however: it is not "subsidization" to refrain from taxing something. If you get to keep 60% of your nominal income after federal, state, and local taxes, is the government kindly "subsidizing" you with that 60%? Of course not; and all the other streams of income out there, including those of academic trusts, have been generated, just as your salary has been, by the independent efforts and intentions of people -- not by the government. Taxation is a 100% parasitic activity. It cannot be made "fair." It can only be made effective, in terms of paying for actual services, and not destroying the real economy.

also Jack
I don't exactly see you providing a works cited page.

jcthomacktruck
you write:

"You accuse everyone else of making assumptions, I don't see that you are doing anything different." I know you don't see that. That's because you don't really know what you are looking at.

and "I'm appalled that you have the asinine opinion that people can pay for a system, rely on administrators like you to run it (shoddily) and then when you and your academic buddies have screwed us over claim we don't know how the system works, so we should defer judgment to you, but by all means keep the money coming."

I'd be appalled too, if that were my opinion. But it is not. It is just one more unfounded assumption you are making. My actual opinion is that if people did the legwork to find out what is really going on, instead of relying on urban myths perpetuated on places like Townhall, they would be going about this in a different way.

But I do understand that it is much easier to make up what I think than try to understand what I really think.


jcthomacktruck II
you write: "If the colleges were run like corporations, we shareholders would have revolted and every one of you would be on the street. I'd be buying Slurpees at the local 7-11 from Ivy League grads."

This is a good point. Colleges and Universities are not run like corporations (mainly) for a very good reason. Colleges and Universities are mostly not for profit entities. The market only works when profit is in the offing. Applying purely market solutions to the non-profit world isn't particularly helpful.

Doesn't this also mean that institutions that were run like businesses would be much more efficient? Actually, there are for profit institutions. Let's take a look.

Waht do we see? That Proprietray institutions are teh worst bet financially, as their graduates have an actual and projected default rate on student loans that is higher than any otehr institutional category? How could the free market produce graduates wh0o can't pay back their loans? Isn't it efficient?

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/reports/ED7.html

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/21/defaults

There is a mountain more evidence. Try ERIC and see what you find.


JeffC
A university is not a trade school. One does not attend university to get job training, but rather to learn how to live.

I have a classical education with a major in English and a minor in Victorian History. I came out with a trade skill: the ability to type rapidly and accurately, to get to work on time and put in a full day's work for a full day's pay, and in many cases with a much better ability to do research, compose letters and reports (in 3 different languages) and prepare expense reports converting foreign currencies into US dollars BEFORE the internet, than my employers had. I also know far more Latin than any of the lawyers I have ever worked for.

If you come out of university with a major in English and the only job you can find is at a bookstore, obviously either you are a failure at marketing yourself or you are lazy.

AudiR10 Is Right
I don't ever recall agreeing with Audie Murphy before, but I do on this score. Almost anybody with a college degree who can't find meaningful work either doesn't know how to find it or has something wrong with them.

Jack
Do you know anything about economics? I'm getting the impression you don't...

I applaud you for your manipulation of the statistical data concerning the loan default rate of proprietary school students. Of course, you ignore the demographic groups to which those schools appeal to disproportionately and the course loads offered by those schools. Many of them offer vocationally-oriented "whack-and-wog" diplomas and associates degrees, which are fundamentally useless. And they are prone to the same practices as private colleges and publicly funded colleges since their students receive federal subsidies. That does not make them a "free market solution." In fact, a free market solution cannot exist with Federal handouts, since those handouts skew the market. Gov't subsidies make buyers and sellers behave differently than they would without the gov't interference.

And students of public institutions can't default on a portion of their tuition, since they pay that up front through with-holding on their (or their parents) income.

For someone complaining about stupid conservatives not being able to parse the differences between private and public and for profit schools, you sure are comparing apples to oranges.

Semper
I appreciate your comment and I agree that Dr. Sowell's education was certainly a good investment for whoever paid for it. Although I'm sure that you would disagree if he were to have a more liberal view. But this doesn't take away from the fact that Dr. Sowell's Hoover Institution is, in effect, part of the system that he argues isn't working. Is the HI's association with Stanford lowering the costs of a Stanford student's education based on the work they produce? And would it survive without the tax exempt donations it receives as a result of being associated with a university? I don't know the answer to those questions, but I would guess the answer to both would be no. I don't necessarily disagree with the point that Dr. Sowell is trying to make, I just think it would be better made if Dr. Sowell himself was exposed to the market evaluation that he wishes imposed on higher education. As much as you and I appreciate Dr. Sowell's work in academia, I would like to see his work put to the test in the real world he seems to want to expose academia to. I'm sure there would be no shortage of suitors should he choose to return to the private sector.

"College" is not for everyone
Dr.Sowell, in his 1st commentary, alluded to one of the basic problems with the current college 'boondoggle'. NOT EVERYONE currently in college should be in college. In fact, very likely, the MAJORITY of those currently in college should not be in college. "College" has become a social and economic 'flytrap' for millions of kids who do not have a clue what they want to do with their lives, but who are attending higher education only because Mom and Dad, or social pressure, persuaded them that they needed to get the degree. Academically, this infusion of millions of un-motivated, un-focused, and, yes, un-qualified students has turned much of higher education into a 'holding tank' for a large group of permanent adolescents who are postphoning their own personal 'date with reality', at great expense to themselves and the academic system

Testing is forbidden - U.diploma instead
I would like to repeat the thesis, which was presented so clearly by John Derbyshire (of
"Unknown Quantity: A Real and Imaginary History of Algebra" fame, as well a member of the "National Review" team).
Namely, at some moment of American history,
around 1970 (?) the Supreme Court of USA has forbidden to use the tests of general cognitive ability (a.k.a. tests of IQ) as tools to evaluate candidates for job. Since that time the role of a substitute for that evaluation is played by a University diploma. Hence the necessity to get that kind of certification. The demand for that certification leads to the demand for University-level education, which level, in most cases is not necessary for the job.
The demand results in increased price - that simple.

Sowell is the One
Straightfroward, no BS common sense. Now, what do we do to fix this? This system is one of the most monopolistic, price-controlled, anti-competitive systems, where the customer has no influence in pricing decisions at all. How convenient that the colleges can just blame everything on government mandates. How many customers really care what the accreditations are, unless they are looking at grad schools? What about the 75% or so who just want a degree so they can get a job? This is the biggest racket anywhere. I went to college 40 yrs ago and in my career I have used almost none of it. And it didn't teach me how to think either. If I learned anything, I taught myself. It did keep me out of Vietnam, for sure, but nowadays that isn't a reason anymore. When are we going to call a halt to this and stop being suckers? I'll tell you what, the Mexicans are smart - a lot of them aren't buying into it.

AudiR10
"A university is not a trade school. One does not attend university to get job training, but rather to learn how to live.

I have a classical education with a major in English and a minor in Victorian History."

A rigerous liberal education is fine... the problem shows itself when standards are watered down and the system lets in unqualified students.

A liberal education is an indirect path to knowledge, economic viability. The current system needs to be a direct shot for the majority of students (who happen to be poor college material in the first place).

LeftRudyRight
It's always refreshing to have a dialogue with someone who doesn't revert immediately to the ad hominem. Many thanks for that. (Even if the reference to how I'd feel if Sowell were a liberal comes close. :-))

I still believe you are introducing a separate topic. HI's work being supported by a TAX-EXEMPT trust doesn't shield HI from market forces. The two things are unrelated. If academic trusts were taxed, the government would have the power to throttle academic freedom in private institutions, and donors might be less inclined to make donations because of the different tax regime -- but the MARKET would have no more power over HI. It would be government regulation that was having power, not the market.

The point that donation-funded academic trusts are not market instruments isn't a counter to Sowell's argument. He doesn't say anywhere that private individuals (the donors and managers of trusts) have been spending academic money stupidly, or making uneconomic judgments in their realm -- nor does he say they haven't. What he WOULD say about that is that it's their money to make the choices with. Government, on the other hand, is spending OUR money; and for political reasons, government routinely dismisses opportunity costs, and intervenes artificially to distort both demand and supply. Sowell is pointing that out.

Sowell himself, I note, as a best-selling author and columnist, has repeatedly been judged by the market of the book industry, the news/opinion media industry, and the reading public.

SJ Doc
I'll have a Tylenol and a Sci Fi book, please.

:)



Well, I think that Com. Colleges do provide some competition (at least for the earlier students), and have a lot of people from the actual market teaching the classes.

Jobs, jobs, jobs
Did you hear Hillary say that? All the rational arguments in the world won't phase Democrats whose primary aim in dreaming up programs is jobs for democrats.
I left academe in 1987 and there was not even a hint that salaries would quadruple by retirement age. Even teaching 12 hours was a very cushy job, imho.
There was another professor who lectured from yellowed notes. One of his students taught my daughter, Without research and professional activity progress slows a lot.

Semper
I thought this site was supposed to be all about polite dialogue (just having a little fun, but I do appreciate the thanks, and agree that a little dialogue as opposed to the shouting matches that can erupt here is refreshing, so thanks right back at you). I don't really disagree with any of your points, nor do I generally disagree with the premise of Dr. Sowell's series. And your also right about me switching gears a little bit in regards to the subject. I do think you're going a little easy on think tanks, though, especially those associated with universities who certainly do benefit from some government funding, even if you don't consider the tax exemption a subsidy, and are somewhat shielded from market forces. I just think it would be nice to see Dr. Sowell in the real world and with the opportunity to put his theories to work and, as I mentioned in my earlier post, there would be no shortage of takers. As much as I like him, I find it a little strange when someone mentions that he should run for POTUS. He's a lifer in the world of academia, a very smart man, but there's got to be a reason he has chosen to stay there and not give it a go in the private sector or government, for that matter. Thanks again for the comments.

Sowell is right
I am the owner of a small career school. My graduates score above the national average on their national certification exams, but to be able to access federal financial aid and military tuition assistance, we must become accredited. What do we have to do differently in order to meet that goal? Mainly pay the accredition board thousands of dollars to show them that we hold meetings and keep track of paperwork. We also have to pay an accounting form for an independent audit each year so they know we aren't cooking the books. Accrediting will cost us about $30,000 the first year; guess why we will be raising tuition? Meanwhile, our biggest competitors are publicly-subsidized universities that get million dollar budgets while I have to make do with what I actually earn. It gets even better for nursing programs; the public college and university system in our state controls the allocation of clinical rotations (they 'share' rather than 'compete') and can refuse to allow a new program to gain access. Now you know why there is always a high demand for nurses; monopolizing the resources reduces competition.

For at least three, ...
... and probably more like four or five decades, over half of the "students" in college, for various reasons, have had no business being there.

Over those same decades the colleges, especially state run institutions, have grown like topsy. In order to keep those who really belong elsewhere, the list of courses has ballooned but the useful content has remained the same. So, many of the courses are ... useless. To make sure those who really don't need college remain on the rolls, the grading system has been ... um ... altered.

All in all though, college seems to be a lot more fun.

Why college costs so much
Sowell is a master of "common sense"

Amenities
Sowell is right on one thing. The university for which I work is offering students free unlimited downloads from a music service.

Of course, this is partly competition with rival universities and partly simple laziness on the part of my university. We were in danger of being sued by the music companies due to the number of students using our network for file sharing. Rather than block it (or, perish the thought, finding out who was doing it and punishing them) and risk upsetting the students, we bought them off by giving them free downloads.

Then again, I suppose when a year of tuition costs as much as both my cars and then some you have to kiss up to your students. (Even if Uncle Sam pays 95% of it.)

By the way, considering the politics of most college students, does anyone think it odd that the government is subsidizing a generation of protesters? Don't we have enough already?


Related topic
I actually wrote on a related topic some time ago. My focus was how competition for government funds inevitably leads to the dumbing down of education.

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/03/05/the_state_versus _universities.thtml


tuition was high before government
Why do you blame government?
The elites will pay anything to keep from mixing with the lower class.

Too many problems
Our children are told over and over again in high school that if they do not go to college they do not have a chance to succeed.

Employers seem to be looking for college graduates in the same way they used to look for high school graduates to fill positions that need neither.

I cannot afford to send my children to college even though the government tells me I should be able to come up with $35,000.00 a year. Which I think after taxes and insurances leaves our family of 6. $20,000.00 dollars to live on.

The government expects me to pay for my son's college education. I expect that my son should pay for it himself by working and taking out Student Loans. But the government wants me to take out the loans. If Mom and Dad are stuck with the bill where is the incentive to work hard and get out quickly.

I am expected to pay higher taxes to send poor children to college who haven't even recieved a decent high school education.

Students are taking longer to graduate. I'm guessing this is because there are more mandatory classes like Black Studies to take. Which means more money.

I could keep going but I doubt anyone wants to hear about it.

My point is in 1982 I worked my way through only borrowing $2000.00. My parents didn't even pay for my room and board. What has happened? I think there are too many parents that will pay any price and so the price goes up.


Seeker of the Truth
Yes, it is a huge status symbol. The same as what kind of car you drive and how big is your house and where do you go on vacation.

Real learning
Brilliant professors do not always make good teachers. I had a Russian Calculus professor. He was a math genius blah, blah, blah. He marched up and down the classroom, shouting in broken English. I never understood a word he said. His tests were handwritten in chicken scratch. I learned what I could on my own and squeaked by with a C-. But I paid (my own money) for his garbage so the University could be distinguished by having a big name on campus. I would have been better off at a Tech school with a real engineer teaching the class. I would have learned something and saved cash.

Even JuCo "professors" get in ...
on the act. About 28 years ago, I was taking some electronics course at Harbor City College, in Los Angeles. This one teacher required a specific lab manual that just happened to have been written by him. No, you couldn't buy a used manual because he required that your lab data be turned in on the tear-out sheets that were in the lab manual. I guess someone was in need of royalties to fund his retirement.

Great Posts
Just testing my access.

Joycey
I had a nearly identical experience. I had always been great in math and the first semester of calc. set me back on my heels. When I finally started again it was a course for engineers with a terrific professor. It was as if someone turned on the lights (which he did). It was "oh, so THAT'S what it's about!"

I again had that kind of experience in an advanced calc. course in grad. school and like you I had to do it all myself. I did OK, probably on account of my greater maturity by that time, but it would have helped if I had understood a word or two that was said in class.



Just testing
Great posts..

Tuition as Discount
Here are some insights into the way a college uses "tuition" to fund scholarships. Which should more correctly be called discounts.

If you have a $45,000/year total cost of a private elite college, roughly $15,000 of that cost goes to cross subsidize the "scholarship" programs at that college or university. That means that what we call a scholarship is really the proceeds from the overcharging of all students to provide funding for those that are chosen to receive financial aid.

Now in past generations this was viewed as somewhat of a good thing. Because it allowed lower income students to be helped pay their college costs. But what has occurred is that college costs have escalated at such a much higher rate than income or general inflation most of the population, (roughly those under $180,000/year in household income or 95% of the US population)can not afford to send their kids to these types of schools anymore. Why? Because they are forced to pay the sticker price of $45,000 unless they get a discount or "scholarship" which is less and less tied to need but is really used to buy diversity or whatever kind of student that the college needs to up it's rating in the US News & World Report College survey.


Continued due to size
SO what you end up with is a school community that is more and more focused on students from only two large economic segments. One, the truely affluent and two those who gained scholarship aid through the fluke of diversity. I don't mean in every case but in general this is the state of the sitution in most of the elite private schools in the US. That is exactly why they have had such a strong emphasis on early admission. It allows the colleges to wrap up those applicants who could committ early and could pay full tuition so that in the normal round the cash flow from those ""full pay admits" can be quantified so it can be used to fund the scholarships of the diversy students they wanted to "bid" for in the final addmission cycle in March and April.






Seems odd
My posts go through unless I try and add a comment about scholarships as discounts?

Censorship???
The above post on scholarships as actually discounts has been submitted at least ten times by me in the last three days to the second and third installment of Dr. Sowell's excellent essays. It is only when I in frustration started trying to see if I could post anything with the above "testing access" posts, and then pondered in the next post censorship that one copy of the post on scholarships as discounts made it out of the "censorship loop". Has anyone ever had this happen to them? Seems like a pretty harmless comment to me. When I mentioned in the very next post "who is censoring these posts?" Then after three days of nothing , the post finally comes out. Odd?????

Censorship???
The above post on scholarships as actually discounts has been submitted at least ten times by me in the last three days to the second and third installment of Dr. Sowell's excellent essays. It is only when I in frustration started trying to see if I could post anything with the above "testing access" posts, and then pondered in the next post censorship that one copy of the post on scholarships as discounts made it out of the "censorship loop". Has anyone ever had this happen to them? Seems like a pretty harmless comment to me. When I mentioned in the very next post "who is censoring these posts?" Then after three days of nothing , the post finally comes out. Odd?????

Rising costs
The reason college costs are rising is because people (like me) are lining up to pay them. I have been paying tuition of some sort since 1989, and the cost has risen about 7% every year, and each year the schools have more applicants then the year before.

Course Load
In the '60's I was a grad assistant teaching a Engineering lab/lecture problem solving course. As I recall, I taught at least two three hour sections--I was a half time assistant, carrying a full load as a student.

After about the second time I taught this course--there was NO preparation required. The problems were mostly the same, and actually quite elementary once you understood the material. I cannot comment on teaching an English Lit course, but technical material--if you understand the material and can communicate--there isn't much else. After the first time or two, you know the areas the students typically have problems with, and more time needs spent.

Yes, grading took time, but not all that much. Got the right answer--quick scan that it wasn't a fluke, and on to the next one. Wrong answer? slightly longer scan to see if the basic approach was correct and a simple error was made--partial credit. Make a quick note as to what the problem is.

I probably spent 10 hours a week including being in class six hours. Paid $250/month.

My major professor, a wonderful and caring person, worked for 20 years on the same problem area. Made essentially no progress, published books and a ton of papers. When I would visit him he would bashfully show me his latest work--bashful because he knew I knew how little real progress he was making. Once the area became of commercial interest, his life's work was eclipsed in the private sector in about a month. But--he soldiered on.

I think he would have been happier and for damned certain more effective had he been free to teach more--which he was pretty good at.


rpm
That is one of the reasons I have usually found community college, junior college, and other non-research institutes have had some of the best professors. Yes, there are many brilliant researchers at the best universities, but those teaching at non-research schools tend to do it for the love of teaching, and usually are much better teachers because of it.

I have 4 children,
two that have graduated with Master degrees, one that is now a sophomore in a state university, and a 8th grader.
My husband and I have required that when they enter college (if they want our financial support) they must pursue a degree that will directly lead them into a career of their choice, and they must complete their bachelor degree in 4 years or the well is dry. They pay for their own masters while they work. They are allowed to live at home during that time, if they choose.
One is a teacher, one a social worker, and one is studying to be an actuary. The fourth, who knows if he'll even qualify the way he's going.
The point being, we know college can be a racket - a place to sink money indefinitely sometimes - but feel helpless to change it. So, we are trying to be proactive on our end.

College
Too many people go to college who should not bother. Too many people, especially the Congress, think that college is necessary.

I sent two children to a high priced college -- paid their tuition in full -- and got two who can't spell, write English, or do any job based on their education. My third child went to a state college where she learned how to perform in a difficult service business at more than half the cost of the expensive school. My youngest was taught by professors who actually cared more about teaching than about research.

The time has come to eliminate college loans and allow the colleges to compete who actually teach something useful. A two-year city college is best for most who want to learn a trade. In a part of the state of California where the public schools can't graduate 50% of its students why the rush to college?

The loans must go and the cost of college will go down and only those who can afford to go, or are able to get scholarships from the bloated money held by the colleges and universities should go or they should work to earn the fees.


community college the better value
I'm in total agreement with andrews. I attended 3 different colleges and universities (and 3 different majors) and found that the community college was the best education with the best teachers. All of my professors were still involved in their disciplines in the real world, i.e. they still had jobs outside of academics, so what they taught was full of real-life examples. No time wasted on 'research'. At about 1/3 of the cost.

My 3 sisters and I all work in IT, one has an engineering degree from the flagship state university, the rest of us either don't have a degree or have a degree from our community college. We've all had about the same amount of success.

I think a lot of people want to send their kids to big name schools for the bragging rights and not the quality of the education. "My kid's at Yale" seems to trump "My kid's at Metro State", even though the education is better and the student body is more focused on school and less on parties.

So fewer college grads is the way to go
Let me get this straight. People on this board think having fewer college grads will keep the U.S. on top of the knowledge economy? If you want more math and science grads you have to make it worth the students while when they finish school. That means fewer H1B visas and restrictions on companies who want to offshore jobs like no U.S. government funds to your company. No need to apply for defense contracts or government software contracts nothing. See if China will give a foreign company a contract. Good luck

LL- Relative value
I agree with the idea that not every person is right for college and, despite changing the subject in some of my posts from yesterday, agree with a lot of what Dr. Sowell is saying. But I have to disagree a little with your premise that CC is a better value than a 4 year college or that 'Metro State' offers a better education than Yale. Depending on the kind of career that you want to go into, or where you live, Metro state may be of more value to you. But if you want to work in investment banking at Goldman Sachs, don't hold your breath waiting for their recruiter to show up at Metro State's campus. If your idea of college is partying and collecting a degree after 4 years of scratching by, Metro State and Yale can both be bad schools. But if you want to spend 4 years utilizing the finest educational resources and have easy access to the best companies, Yale might make more sense than Metro. I'm not saying that one is always better than the other or that one guarantees success over the other, but that is because there is no absolute way to measure the value of one versus the other. Every person is unique and so is every school. Some very smart people will utilize Metro State and go on to very fruitful careers just as some idiots will go to Yale and waste $200K over 4 years.

tuition
anything that the govt meddles in always winds up screwed up,and the dems want the federal govt to run health care,look at social security, no thanks

Nickel
Not a bad set of posts, though you are a bit off on one critical point.

In selective institutions, dollars have been directed away from students with financial need and toward the middle and upper class. Contrary to why you seem to be saying, the number of low income students at selective insitutions has been plummeting for many years.

But you are absolutely correct about what is driving admissions in select schools. Top schools have been obsessed with bringing in the most highly qualified class possible in order to influence their rankings.

This has NOT resulted in a more diverse campus, despite what you might think. It has resulted in a socioeconomically homogenous population. The small number of low income students in selective schools is a travesty, (See Carnavale and Rose).

That's why the top schools could afford to eliminate loans from financial aid packages. They were serving so few students who needed them that it really didn't take that much more money.



Funny, how times change
I first started reading conservatives back in the 1960s--all those people who are now ignored by today's functionally illiterate right-wing populists who regard themselves as conservatives.
Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Eric Voegelin, the Southern Agrarians, T.S. Eliot, etc. One of the things these writers criticized was the vocational trend in higher education. With great passion and erudition, people like Russell Kirk attacked the conversion of American universities into high-priced vocational schools. What's so funny is that these old-time conservative intellectuals (Buckley weighed in on this too a few times) blamed liberalism for these deplorable developments.

Now conservatives, for the most part, seem to want to make higher education even more vocational. They say college is all about tracking the student into a career. Funny, how times change.

Gestell
The group you so aptly describe as "functionally illiterate right-wing populists" don't really care why they criticize education. They will criticize whatever education does because they despise education and mistrust learning. Learning, after all, leads one to consider things from multiple points of view, and that runs counter to their simplistic sense of right and wrong.

Jack
I agree somewhat with your point. The so called "merit scholarships" have been used to compete for the wealthy students who happen to either be great students or valuable athletes or meet a diversity need or perceived need at the college or university. I agree that the schools have become much more homogeneous, but that is mainly as a result of the things I mentioned before. If the only ones who can afford $45,000/year without any loans or financial aid are the ones the college/university is really using as it's basis for funding the "scholarships", you are going to have a lot of kids from the top 5% of the US population. Not much of any from the middle income ranks and only those who fit the criteria from the truely poor segments of society. One of the unfortunate realities of the American current public high school education is that lower income children seldom have the quality of public high school preperation to academically qualify to compete successfully at the top colleges or universities. I will let the readers ascribe whatever reasons they like for that one, but it is pretty obvious when you visit more elite college campuses.

Nickel
You are exactly correct. The one factor most closely associated with acacemic success in higher education is family income. Even among students with equivalent preparation, substantially more students from wealthy families earn degrees. Nonetheless, it is the number of low income students that has been plummeting, while middle class student numbers have been merely declining.


Imagine this
A place where people went to take classes because they were interested in the subjects and wanted to learn more. How many college/student relationships fit that model? 5 percent? Naaaaa....

Well,
Low income students would be caught in a strange world indeed. They might feel a little left out when the rest of their dorm heads for the Carribean over winter break and they end up having to stay in the dorm because they can't afford the bus fare home. Now there is someone who should be getting the scholarship help. But, unless they are truely highly gifted or an amazing athlete, that is not too likely.

Gestell - Mutatis mutandis
--
Reminisces Gestell:

"I first started reading conservatives back in the 1960s--all those people who are now ignored by today's functionally illiterate right-wing populists who regard themselves as conservatives.
Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Eric Voegelin, the Southern Agrarians, T.S. Eliot, etc. One of the things these writers criticized was the vocational trend in higher education. With great passion and erudition, people like Russell Kirk attacked the conversion of American universities into high-priced vocational schools. What's so funny is that these old-time conservative intellectuals (Buckley weighed in on this too a few times) blamed liberalism for these deplorable developments."


It must be kept in mind that what Kirk (et alia) were complaining about was an America in which access to college education was being made more and more open (by way of the G.I. Bill) to young men in the years after World War II.

Young men who were not of upper- (or upper-middle-) class background, who would have to get themselves a living after completing college, and would need what they'd learned in those college courses to improve their economic situations, without benefit of family connections or patrimony.

They weren't in school for the "erudition" and scholarship for its own sake, and that changed the tone of higher education in America.

In my extended family, *all* those of my father's generation entered World War II military service as enlisted men, and the first to earn a commission (my Uncle John) did so only after the War, continuing in the PANG after service from Normandy to V-E day.

He got sent to Korea for his troubles.

My dad was the family's first college graduate, completing high school, college, and his Master's degree using his G.I. Bill benefits.

That generation changed American colleges beyond the scope with which Gestell's writers wer familiar - or comfortable.

And for the better, I believe.

--

Beautifying still, Socialism/Communism
Since when is it Constitutional to even have a Department of Education run by the Federal Government or even State Governments etc., etc., etc.? In a figure of speech, what Mr. Sowell ends up doing is like trying to run a whore-house squeaky clean!

I am taking the liberty to use above analogy in as much as I believe that Public Education is even more destructive to America, than anyone who runs whore-houses. Public Education in my book is the single most effective subtle tool of Satan himself in destroying all that pertains to truly home life, as God intented in the very beginning of time, when he created Adam and Eve.

If the Founding Fathers were to rise, they would be put to tears, finding that America is so deeply in love with every other Socialistic/Communistc programs its Federal Government has forced upon the America nation.

Yes, because of it, it is that America has been declared in full economical bankupt condition at the tune of up to 60 trillion dollars. Yes, if my information is correct, Public Education is the first Socialistic/Communistic program installed by the Federal Government over a century ago, and has actually become the breeding ground for all present Socialistic/Communistic programs strangling America morally.

God only knows what generation is to pay the bill that is being forwarded presently by the Federal Government!

Academic Discussion
The guy Jack had a point about backing up allegations of inefficiency and waste and he had a point about generalizing among institutions. However, when a cost increases in the proportion that I think we can all concede has happened in the case of higher ed, it is something of a prima facie case that calls for its apologists to justify it, not for its critics to prove the lack of necessity.

If he is an academic, Jack undermines his point by referring to the Iraq war. First he characterizes it as "meaningless". If it is meaningless, then referencing it does not point in one direction or the other. If he meant "wasteful" or "counterproductive" it makes him sound hypocritical because he doesn't prove his point by using statistics and whatnot. Even if he went on to prove it, he would sound like the guy who gets caught speeding and points out that he saw three people speeding yesterday.

I think higher education is a bit of a scam, but I'm not going to take the time to prove it because I got a job to do, and I don't get paid to muse over these points, nor will my research mow my lawn this evening. I will wait for the unleashed power of common access to information via the internet to challenge the universities relevance. It is a much more potent force.

Academics
I forgot to point out that the argument that was made about traditional conservatives being against the decreasing emphasis on intellectual development in favor of vocational training is a point that is well taken. Conservatism has lost some of its intellectual rigor as a result of an originally well intended effort not to be effete.

Everybody has to get a dollar and survive first, but once that is done there needs to be some room for intellectual development that doesn't immediately generate income.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.