Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:It's possible his claims and that survery are consistent, especially (if as I expect), there is data showing that those who never enroll in college have very low religious habits.

At this point, who isn't enrolling in college at all?

Well, the essence of the point, as I understand it, is that enrolling in college causes a loss of faith; and that the loss of faith requires faith in order to be lost.

My point is twofold:

1) The distinction between those who have faith, and do not have faith is fairly difficult to determine. Its easy to say "Yeah, I believe in God." without committing to any explicit religion. Its also easy to say only people who do X believe in God.

2) If his point is that university attendance causes "crises of faith", then one would expect people who do not attend university to have fewer "crises of faith"; where "crises of faith" is related to service attendance (a terrible metric).

I haad a crisis of faith in college, I know many that do. And me and them come out with a better understanding of both god, religion and our place n the world.

biccat wrote:1a) Isn't the purpose of primary education (K-12) supposed to satisfy the requirement of educating people?

It is, but it simply doesn't do enough any more. We can alleviate this problem by either encouraging more people to attend college or give more time to primary education by making it year round or extending the school day.

biccat wrote:1b) Is education for its own sake valuable?

Absolutely. Having more education leads to more refined communication and problem solving skills. And, even in jobs that don't require the knowledge gained in education, having an educated workforce is advantageous.

biccat wrote:1c) What is the educational value of a degree in Jazz Studies?

Quite a bit. Music theory is actually very close to some mathematics. And, by studying it, you not only increase your creative ability, but your logic and reasoning ability. True, the exact skills you learn aren't necessarily going to be useful (unless you go into music), but by studying it, you refine your brain.

biccat wrote:2) I'm not sure how that follows, or what point you're trying to make. If you're suggesting that the increased prevalance of BA/BS degrees devalues an individual degree, then I agree.

I disagree with that idea that increasing the number of Bachelor degrees makes each individual one devalued. Economics of scale play an important part in this equation.

By having a population that is significantly more educated, the population would be more productive overall, which would benefit the economy as a whole. And, as the population gets better educated, you'll have less people reliant on social programs, allowing a decrease in taxes which leads to an even larger growth in the economy. This makes each individual job more and more valuable.

So, increasing the prevalence of BA/BS degrees increases the value of an individual degree.

Grakmar wrote:It is, but it simply doesn't do enough any more. We can alleviate this problem by either encouraging more people to attend college or give more time to primary education by making it year round or extending the school day.

Is the problem that schools have become less efficient, or that the volume of information students need to learn today is so much greater than say 50 years ago? I think the former.

Grakmar wrote:Absolutely. Having more education leads to more refined communication and problem solving skills. And, even in jobs that don't require the knowledge gained in education, having an educated workforce is advantageous.

Even if it is adventageous, what is the return on investment for having a janitor with a bachelors degree?

If education is important in itself, then why do people with degrees make so much more than people who almost complete a degree? The obvious answer is that degrees aren't valuable themselves, but that they are used by employers as signalling devices. An employer reasons that a person with Degree X has qualities Y and Z that are valuable.

Grakmar wrote:

biccat wrote:1c) What is the educational value of a degree in Jazz Studies?

Quite a bit. Music theory is actually very close to some mathematics. And, by studying it, you not only increase your creative ability, but your logic and reasoning ability. True, the exact skills you learn aren't necessarily going to be useful (unless you go into music), but by studying it, you refine your brain.

There's value in a degree that isn't useful? I suppose that depends on how you define value.

Grakmar wrote:I disagree with that idea that increasing the number of Bachelor degrees makes each individual one devalued. Economics of scale play an important part in this equation.

By having a population that is significantly more educated, the population would be more productive overall, which would benefit the economy as a whole.

I disagree with your second comment. In fact, it's a comment that isn't verifiable one way or the other.

Grakmar wrote:And, as the population gets better educated, you'll have less people reliant on social programs, allowing a decrease in taxes which leads to an even larger growth in the economy.

This only follows if better educated people are more likely to get jobs. Statistically, that's correct, but I don't think there's a causal relationship.

biccat wrote:
1a) Isn't the purpose of primary education (K-12) supposed to satisfy the requirement of educating people?

To a degree. But I was under the impression that in the context of this thread "educated" essentially meant "educated to a collegiate standard."

biccat wrote:
1b) Is education for its own sake valuable?

To a degree. Information is valuable, though how valuable will depend on the nature of the information. Similarly, there is a degree of value to all modes of thought (which are the ultimate product of education), but the actual value will depend on the specific mode of thought.

biccat wrote:
1c) What is the educational value of a degree in Jazz Studies?

An education in the knowledge of Jazz music. Exactly what it says on the tin.

biccat wrote:
2) I'm not sure how that follows, or what point you're trying to make. If you're suggesting that the increased prevalance of BA/BS degrees devalues an individual degree, then I agree.

No, I'm suggesting that it places a greater emphasis on the specific nature of the degree. Having a BA in English is not like having a BS in Computer Science.

Long gone are the days when having a BA/BS is sufficient for employers, you need to have the right BA/BS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I haad a crisis of faith in college, I know many that do. And me and them come out with a better understanding of both god, religion and our place n the world.

I imagine that most people in their late teens or early 20s have crises of faith. Its around that time you start to develop actual independence, and move beyond the "Yeah, whatever my parents are." phase of existence.

Also, lets be honest, church is boring, and, at that age, Sundays are best spent recovering from Saturday night.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
1a) Isn't the purpose of primary education (K-12) supposed to satisfy the requirement of educating people?

To a degree. But I was under the impression that in the context of this thread "educated" essentially meant "educated to a collegiate standard."

What's a collegiate standard then?

Allegedly, the purpose of a K-12 education is to provide for an educated populace. Anything we absolutely need to know should be contained in those 13 years. Anything we learn in college is, therefore, unnecessary. Especially given that college degrees are not subject to a required curriculum.

dogma wrote:No, I'm suggesting that it places a greater emphasis on the specific nature of the degree. Having a BA in English is not like having a BS in Computer Science.

Long gone are the days when having a BA/BS is sufficient for employers, you need to have the right BA/BS.

When was simply having a BA/BS sufficient for any employer? Even when I talk to law students, the first thing I ask is what was their undergraduate degree.

If the specific degree didn't matter before, why would it matter now?

dogma wrote:2) Simply having a BA/BS does not mean you have a relevant version of either.

A BA of Chemistry doesn't pull as much weight with employers as a BS of Chemistry, according to my college's transfer center.

But then again, the transfer center could be biased.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:2) Simply having a BA/BS does not mean you have a relevant version of either.

A BA of Chemistry doesn't pull as much weight with employers as a BS of Chemistry, according to my college's transfer center.

But then again, the transfer center could be biased.

That's not the experience I've gotten. I've got a BS in Physics, but no one ever seems to care if it's a BA or a BS. Different schools all have different standards for the difference between the two, so it's not really a good sorting tool unless the person is familiar with the college.

The difference between the classes (for the one I'm looking t) is the difference between general college physics for science majors, and engineering level physics. The Chemistry for a BS was something like two semesters more advanced than the on in the BA. At least, I think it is, I'd have to check once I get back from class.

A lot of BA's in the hard sciences require substantially less math, specifically Calculus.

Well yeah. The engineering level physics require a lot of calc prerequisites.

Ok lets get back to talking about what brought this college thing on.
Why is he a Snob for wanting poeple to go to college?
And Santorum, Not all colleges are liberal, Hell at UC Berkeley recently they had a back sale where whites are charged more as a joke about affirmative action.
Also BYU is fairly conservative.
I think, NO. I KNOW santrum wants a world full of uneducated religiious fanatics that do nothing but pray and if he get elected im moving out of here first chance i get.

biccat wrote:
What's a collegiate standard then?

I don't know.

What does it mean to be educated?

A second grade student, and a professor are both, broadly, educated.

biccat wrote:
Allegedly, the purpose of a K-12 education is to provide for an educated populace. Anything we absolutely need to know should be contained in those 13 years. Anything we learn in college is, therefore, unnecessary. Especially given that college degrees are not subject to a required curriculum.

Sure, I'll buy that, but you have to recognize that the necessity of knowledge is contingent upon what we want people to learn. No one needs to know anything, but we generally want people to be functional citizens (again, highly ambiguous) and so teach them things we believe will make them functional citizens; thereby defining what people need to learn.

I suppose I've really just answered my own question, and will say that, from a general perspective, to be educated is to have the knowledge one needs to be a functional citizen. And sure, most everything we need to know in order to be a functional citizen is contained K-12, but being a functional citizen doesn't make someone a functional lawyer, doctor, professor, etc.

biccat wrote:
When was simply having a BA/BS sufficient for any employer? Even when I talk to law students, the first thing I ask is what was their undergraduate degree.

If the specific degree didn't matter before, why would it matter now?

There are more of them, and there has been a great degree of speciation in the academy over the last 20-30 years.

As an example, my old man studied political science in undergrad, and his first job out of college was at an accounting firm. If I tried to apply for the same job today, based only on a political science BA, I would have no chance.

I suppose, though, that I made my original point poorly. There were obviously technical requirements regarding degrees, and employers, in the past. I'm arguing that the requirements are now more specific than they were before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:A BA of Chemistry doesn't pull as much weight with employers as a BS of Chemistry, according to my college's transfer center.

But then again, the transfer center could be biased.

The difference between a BA and a BS is ambiguous at the best of times.

Though, yeah, generally employers in the sciences like to see BS more than they like to see BA; though that's changing as the classification gets more and more unreliable.

My advice to my graduating students was "Always include 'selected coursework' in your resume."

dogma wrote:What does it mean to be educated?

A second grade student, and a professor are both, broadly, educated.

I get the broader philosophical point you're making. But really, if I (i.e. the taxpayer) am expected to pay for something, it's nice to know what I'm getting for the money.

Does that mean everyone takes Calculus and has a basic understanding of interpretive dance? Or is it just "stay in school for 4 years and get a degree in something?" We can reasonably discuss the benefits of the former; the latter is rhetoric.

dogma wrote:I suppose I've really just answered my own question, and will say that, from a general perspective, to be educated is to have the knowledge one needs to be a functional citizen. And sure, most everything we need to know in order to be a functional citizen is contained K-12, but being a functional citizen doesn't make someone a functional lawyer, doctor, professor, etc.

Sounds like you would accept the idea that college is really more about specialized training than it is a general intangible benefit.

dogma wrote:As an example, my old man studied political science in undergrad, and his first job out of college was at an accounting firm. If I tried to apply for the same job today, based only on a political science BA, I would have no chance.

I suppose, though, that I made my original point poorly. There were obviously technical requirements regarding degrees, and employers, in the past. I'm arguing that the requirements are now more specific than they were before.

I see.

I don't think that the requirements are more specific, I think the problem is that more people are educated. Back when your dad graduated there probably weren't enough accounting graduates to fill the needs of the industry. A political science BA doesn't inherently disqualify you from an accounting job, you're disqualified because there are so many other specialized applicants (accounting majors).

This specialization is generally a good thing (and tends to occur when there's a large market), but it supports my original point: a college degree is worth less today because of the abundance of graduates.

Melissia wrote:A BA of Chemistry doesn't pull as much weight with employers as a BS of Chemistry, according to my college's transfer center.

But then again, the transfer center could be biased.

Probably not.

You should get your BS in Chemistry.

I never knew there was a BA in hard sciences. I thought that was the point...

The real issue is, It is a lot easier and less costly for someone in HR to sort out resumes based on degree/no degree/specific degree than it is to actually interview a bunch of people to find the best fit.

Businesses are simply trying to shift HR and training costs from their balance sheets onto the Governments. I don't blame the business community, the essence of good business is to get someone else to pay for your risk.

Perhaps instead of simply accepting this transfer of costs, the government should push back a bit?

biccat wrote:
I get the broader philosophical point you're making. But really, if I (i.e. the taxpayer) am expected to pay for something, it's nice to know what I'm getting for the money.

Does that mean everyone takes Calculus and has a basic understanding of interpretive dance? Or is it just "stay in school for 4 years and get a degree in something?" We can reasonably discuss the benefits of the former; the latter is rhetoric.

I broadly agree that there is too much emphasis on the 4 year degree in America. Its simply that I don't place the onus of blame on the higher education system. I think the problem is primarily cultural, and that it extends beyond any rational self-interest that universities might have regarding their funding.

I also understand the idea that you want to know what you're paying for but funding for higher education isn't quite the same thing as funding for K-12. It isn't entirely tax payer dependent, certainly speaking in terms of federal taxes. You get to know whee your money is going, but you don't get to know quite as much as you do with K-12, and you have less control over it.

biccat wrote:
Sounds like you would accept the idea that college is really more about specialized training than it is a general intangible benefit.

I would include the type of socialization one receives at the collegiate level in "specialized training".

hotsauceman1 wrote:And Santorum, Not all colleges are liberal, Hell at UC Berkeley recently they had a back sale where whites are charged more as a joke about affirmative action.

Wait, are you suggesting that UC Berkeley isn't a liberal college?

biccat wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:And Santorum, Not all colleges are liberal, Hell at UC Berkeley recently they had a back sale where whites are charged more as a joke about affirmative action.

Wait, are you suggesting that UC Berkeley isn't a liberal college?

No, Im simply stating that they cant indoctrinate people. People are there to learn. and if they learn the truth at college, well good for them.

Aren't a lot of the people that think college indoctrinates young adults also the people that think that violence in TV doesn't indoctrinate children?

biccat wrote:Apparently you're using a different version of economics than I am.

As the other thread demonstrated, I'm using a version that understands what neo-classical economics are, while you're using a version that doesn't.

I think that an oversupply is a problem. You, apparently, consider it a positive, so much so that the government should encourage an oversupply.

That's not economics.

Except, of course, my suggestion simply didn't mention increasing supply at all. You failed to read what I wrote, yet again, and instead just made up some nonsense in your own head.

I said that there was a benefit to society in having highly skilled professionals. Achieving this doesn't mean opening up more and more college places, it can simply mean being more selective in who attends college. That is, government funding a scheme to make college affordable for anyone with the sufficient talent, without increasing the number of spaces available in colleges. Which would, logically, increase the talent of those attending (as it shifts the requirements from capability & have parents that can pay to simply capability), and thereby improve the quality of graduates, and thereby improve the quality of the next generation of professionals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I am sure the Dutch give a gak about Santorum. Inversely I am sure Santorum gives a gak about the Dutch.

Your response makes no sense. The Dutch don't give a gak about Santorum, except to the extent that they're bothered about anyone telling lies about their country. Santorum doesn't give a gak about the Dutch, except to the extent he can tell fantastical lies that excite people who want to believe lies about scary secular societies.

What you should pick up out of that is not the relationship of the Dutch to Santorum, but that Santorum is telling lies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:50 years ago, schools had a stake in precluding students that could not succeed. Now, the job is to fill seats and cash government checks.

The problem there comes from the system they've used, granting funds to anyone who wanted to attend college, but not placing a check on the number of college places available. The interactions of various factors are too complex for anyone to conclude that that alone is the cause of the oversupply of college graduates (psychological factors and status of being a college graduate are too powerful for the individual student's decision to be assumed as purely rational), but it can certainly be considered a factor.

But consider a system wherein government agreed to fund 100,000 college places a year, in specific, high end degrees, for the brightest 100,000 graduates from high school, but would not fund anyone else. What you'd get is talented people who might otherwise be unable to attend college would go, replacing less talented people with richer parents. And at the same time you'd have no effect on overall college attendance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:As we've see, increasing the amount of money is akin to the current crisis in overinflating the cost of healthcare- a government backed system has led to overcharging and created a system wherein the payer suffers while the organization that collects the money benefits.

Please reconcile this statement with the healthcare systems of other developed countries, who have more government involvement, and yet have lower healthcare costs and generally better outcomes.

It really isn't as simple as government involvement always does x and y. It depends on how government interacts with the system.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:50 years ago, schools had a stake in precluding students that could not succeed. Now, the job is to fill seats and cash government checks.

The problem there comes from the system they've used, granting funds to anyone who wanted to attend college, but not placing a check on the number of college places available. The interactions of various factors are too complex for anyone to conclude that that alone is the cause of the oversupply of college graduates (psychological factors and status of being a college graduate are too powerful for the individual student's decision to be assumed as purely rational), but it can certainly be considered a factor.

But consider a system wherein government agreed to fund 100,000 college places a year, in specific, high end degrees, for the brightest 100,000 graduates from high school, but would not fund anyone else. What you'd get is talented people who might otherwise be unable to attend college would go, replacing less talented people with richer parents. And at the same time you'd have no effect on overall college attendance.

Its also worth noting that the only incentive colleges have to accept only students likely to succeed is institutional prestige. Institutional prestige is important when considering what a school can charge (people will pay to go to Harvard than to go to Illinois), but its only one factor among several, the dominant one being ability to pay. Once the administration has your tuition, whether or not you succeed or fail is largely irrelevant so long as costs are covered.

dogma wrote:Its also worth noting that the only incentive colleges have to accept only students likely to succeed is institutional prestige. Institutional prestige is important when considering what a school can charge (people will pay to go to Harvard than to go to Illinois), but its only one factor among several, the dominant one being ability to pay. Once the administration has your tuition, whether or not you succeed or fail is largely irrelevant so long as costs are covered.

Having just completed a three year stint working at a university, I can also say that the assumption that universities operate on anything near a rational financial basis to be really very dubious. Money matters, obviously, but the prestige of the university is a priority in and of itself at least equal to financial considerations.

We're talking about academics here, after all, and even the best of them are still more than a little vain. So when it comes to telling their fellows that they are dean of a department that is ranked among the best in the world, and produces more cited research in their field than any other, or telling their fellows their department is consistantly profitable, which do you think they prefer?