<p>
</p>
<p>And look what a hash of governance these modern-day Solons have made over the last twenty years. Graduates from undistinguished directional state universities could hardly have done worse. Please note that this is not a partisan slam. I am tired of educational snobbery.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it would be a less intellectually barron landscape without the educational snobbery.</p>
<p>I’m trying to follow barron’s thesis throughout this thread but he goes off on so many odd tangents that it is tough. I think it is this…</p>
<p>Any degree received from a non-elite school is worthless because you can’t make much money and there are few jobs.
If you can’t be in the top 1% of high school grads and therefore eligible for an elite school, you should not go to college but instead learn a trade.
Therefore, no colleges should exist other than the elite.</p>
<p>Is that correct?</p>
<p>barrons puts things somewhat abrasively.</p>
<p>I think it could be put more moderately though. </p>
<p>For non-technical grads from directional state U’s, who are NOT going into education, employment prospects are probably more limited than for either more technical areas, or for more selective institutions. That does not mean there is no premium for their BA’s over a HS grad or a CC grad - a fortiori it does not mean they are not employable. But it DOES suggest that in a state undergoing cutbacks to education hiring, its perhaps not surprising that enrollment at a directional U would be decreasing - though still a very desirable option for some (especially considering a lower Cost of Attendance).</p>
<p>The problem with this country and the world is that they are not run by engineers. I’m only half-kidding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But then the city of Madison, WI, would dry up and blow away!</p>
<p>I think that most people in this thread would agree that elite grads have more and better job prospects. The kicker came when barron’s said that third tier degrees are worthless. Again, what are the 99% of the students not eligible for an elite school supposed to do? What you (brooklyn) said is absolutely true but that is clearly not what barron’s said or intended to say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which, whether you agree with it or not, is qualitatively different than:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like Jimmy Carter?</p>
<p>Yes, actually. But the President doesn’t “run the country”. I don’t think any president is half as good as he gets credit for, or half as bad as he gets blamed for. The President has the bully pulpit, but Congress has the real power. Constitutionally, the President can’t do much without Congress, but a united Congress can do just about anything whether the President likes it or not.</p>
<p>See, the great thing about engineers is that they are very analytical but not very political. An engineer generally will propose what is objectively right, if it can be determined, not what is expedient. I’m sure that could have drawbacks, too, but I’m just thinking out loud. On the whole, I think that if all of our leaders had to be picked from one profession, engineering would be best. That’s just me.</p>
<p>The other POTUS who was an engineer, of course, was Herbert Hoover. Not exactly up there in the pantheon of great ones. Unless you’re Archie Bunker.</p>
<p>Im not defending that other poster. I think his extreme statement has distracted from the issue at hand, however.</p>
<p>Obviously I am not here to write long treatises on the impacts of higher education. Nobody would read them and they would not stimulate much response. By putting things in starker terms you quickly get to the gist of things. So what I said is just an amped up version of what Brooklyn said. The value of a subpar college education is rapidly declining and may soon be a washor worse with a shorter tech education. NPR had a major investor that said today that companies are happy with their new smaller sizes and the jobs won’t be coming back anytime soon. Neither are public sector jobs that used to hire lots of average+ college grads.
Yet the educational forces want to ramp up even more spending on higher education. To what end exactly? Yes education has some intrinsic value but as a public investment that is not enough in the tough times that WILL last.
And I think Top 10% qualifies as high quality students/schools. Not 1%. </p>
<p>So I would not be upset if they closed 25% of public and private colleges tomorrow. I doubt the economy would be hurt 1 bit in the long run. The grad rates for the worst 25% of colleges are abysmal anyway. Put more money into the better colleges so that they can maintain the quality they once had and provide better fin aid. Those left out can prove themselves by doing well in CC. No 4 yr college worth the name should have less than a around a 60% 6 yr grad rate. We can no longer afford such waste.</p>
<p>“NPR had a major investor that said today that companies are happy with their new smaller sizes and the jobs won’t be coming back anytime soon.”</p>
<p>which will hurt non grads even more. </p>
<p>I mean sure, if you are certain you are going to be unemployed anyway, its cheaper to do that without a degree than with.</p>
<p>CCs are oversubscribed right now, and if the more desirable trade apprenticeship programs have slots going empty I havent heard it. </p>
<p>cross country studies show that more post HS ed results in higher national incomes - and for non tech fields as well as tech. </p>
<p>As an INDIVIDUAL a trade can be a good option - but then as an INDIVIDUAL there are ways to avoid failing to graduate on time. As a society low grad rates are a big problem, but as a society we cant assume all who dont attend college will take up an in demand trade - for reasons we may speculate about, most wont. </p>
<p>By conflating individual and societal decisions you create more heat than light.</p>
<p>I am NOT saying that for any given state it might not make sense to prioritize their ed dollars away from direction U’s. But Barrons points are not really germane to the policy decision, mostly.</p>
<p>I’ll propose an argument based on economics:</p>
<p>Certain educational tracks are easier and/or more interesting than others, which ensures that more students will pursue them than pursue certain other, harder and/or less interesting tracks. This ensures that, in any educational system that allows choice, certain fields will always have an abundance of graduates. This in turn ensures that the fields that are the most interesting to the average person, or the easiest to become skilled in, or both, will always have fewer jobs than qualified job-seekers, and that those jobs will always pay less than jobs at the same level in other fields.</p>
<p>Ergo, this discussion will not change, ever. I don’t mean that snarkily. I just think it’s logically true. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>If CCs and trades are over-subscribed it still is much cheaper to enlarge them while cutting the lowest tier 4 year schools. Yes, there may not be enough jobs no matter what you do period. But I would rather hang out my sign as a decent honest plumber than as somebody with a degree in sociology or El Ed from Frosty State if my eating depended on it. </p>
<p>I think if you break things down you would find the most capable students do go for the harder majors with better prospects and that those attracted to the easier ones such as el. education and comm arts and sociology are the least capable. Not to the dime but certainly in broad ranges.</p>
<p>Wow.</p>
<p>I strongly suspect that if you polled rising seniors at central Illinois high schools and asked them this question -
Are you going to attend EIU? If not, why not?
you would find that the majority will not attend because they can not afford to, not because they want and can afford to attend a better school.</p>
<p>There is a whole world out there where spending $15-$20/year for four years of college is completely out of the question.</p>
<p>And that is why EIU enrollments are declining, and CC enrollments are climbing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may well be. I live in a small, poor rural community in north central Illinois and while I haven’t personally heard that, I do know a number of graduates with records good enough to get into four-year colleges who have chosen to go to our (excellent) local CC.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, a determined student who is willing to work can still make a go of it at an Illinois directional.</p>
<p>A young lady I know graduated this spring from NIU. Her family is definitely low income; they live in subsidized housing and get food stamps. Her dad is totally disabled, her mom works three part-time jobs, and was recently very glad to get the third of those jobs, 20 hours a week at a convenience store at minimum wage. Nevertheless, she was able to graduate in four years, living away from home all four years, and even save up enough money to go to London after graduation for a six-week unpaid internship. She worked as a waitress all through school, which is what made it possible. I know she got some FA, how much I don’t know.</p>
<p>Of course, if the barrons of the world had their way, she would just have gone straight from HS into the waitress job, done that for the rest of her life, and perhaps been marginally better off than her parents. She’s has not found a professional job yet, but she has prospects that her HS-educated parents never did; and given her history of making things happen for herself, I know it’s just a matter of time.</p>
<p>Well, good for her! I’ll bet her parents are very proud.</p>
<p>You should see the line at the bookstore at my D’s CC. Actually there are two lines, one for financial aid and one for cash. The financial aid line is always longer. And that is at the low cost, low prestige CC, in relatively affluent suburbia, not rural IL.</p>
<p>BTW my nephew chose EIU over UIUC because of the higher cost of UIUC. The difference mattered to him as he self funded his education.</p>
<p>Some people should take a road trip sometime far away from the malls and high rises.</p>