10 Reason To Skip The Expensive Colleges

<p>10</a> Reasons to Skip the Expensive Colleges on Shine</p>

<p>Couldn't agree more.</p>

<p>Had no idea that adjuncts now do 70% of the teaching at Yale. I wonder whether it is 70% of the courses, 70% of the teachers, or 70% of student class time.</p>

<p>Hmmm. In my D's 4 years at Yale, she had exactly one adjunct (who was terrific). I find the 70% figure difficult to believe. This is from a post on the Yale forum:</p>

The only way that number even remotely makes sense is if they are counting discussion and lab sections taught by grad students in that 70%. I believe I only took one lecture course in my 4 years that was taught by someone other than a tenured/tenure-track professor (and that person was a long-time lecturer with job security) and every one of my seminars was taught by a tenured or tenure track faculty member. But almost all of those lecture courses had discussion sections, and if those are counted separately, I can see how they get to 70%. The irony, of course, is that getting rid of discussion sections would lower that 70% number drastically, even though it would mean a worse education as it would eliminate the chance to have smaller group discussions in the context of a lecture course.</p>

<p>The other sort of course routinely taught by non-tenure track faculty are language classes. But that doesn't really seem like anything to complain about, if you ask me. It doesn't take a PhD, much less doing cutting edge research, to be able to effectively teach a foreign language.


<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/1194276-70-courses-taught-adjuncts.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/1194276-70-courses-taught-adjuncts.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The article makes two decent basic points--don't pile up big debt for undergraduate education, and try to go somewhere that concentrates on undergraduate education--but goes completely off the rails in most other respects. It is replete with contradictions, and falsehoods that are created by misapplying basic assumptions. The idea that 70% of classes at Yale are taught by "adjuncts" would appear to be an outright falsehood. (Yale and all other universities are in the process of training scholars and professors. Graduate students leading sections under the supervision of professors is part of that training. That is VASTLY different from St Mary's by the Roadside hiring adjuncts to teach courses because they are too cheap to hire tenure-track professors.) They can't seem to decide who is and is not "elite." The southern football school cited certainly isn't even within shouting distance of elite. First they like LACs, then they are lambasting Williams. (Which is not only elite, but costs as much as elite universities.) And of course they completely sidestep the fact that it is the most elite schools that give the most FA, for many students resulting in a lower final bill than that of their state U.</p>

<p>In fact, it is the big state Us that they end up recommending that often engage in most of the practices they decry: adjuncts, big football programs, etc.</p>

<p>One would hope that the actual book is more careful in applying its criticisms, and that the flaws of the article come from trying to compress their points into a few hundred words.</p>

<p>And, of course, let's not forget the audience for this article: Reader's Digest. Of course they want to hear that those "fancy" schools are just a ripoff, and Johnny will get far more for their money at directional state U than at Princeton. GO [insert name of football team here]!</p>

<p>The article makes 2 huge assumptions:</p>

<li><p>Nobody who doesn't qualify for FA will have saved the money or built up their income sufficiently to pay full freight so the kid will have to incur big debt. Just not true. Some of us actually signed up for the 529s as soon as they became available, contributed and invested the funds conservatively. We assumed all responsible parents with any sort of middle class or above income were doing that but we assumed wrong, apparently.</p></li>
<li><p>Everybody who goes to a school like Yale pays >$200k. Completely untrue.</p></li>

<p>Moreover, looking at who is a "big name" from the Princeton class of '73 is really stupid. First of all, Princeton didn't have FA in 1973 and so it was full of mediocre rich kids. Could not be more different from todays classes at Princeton. And beyond that, I'd look at crude measures of income over who is a "name". It's just sophomoric to try to measure the worth of a college in such a manner.</p>

<p>Consolation, great post</p>