MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on January 16, 2017, 12:00:33 AM
-
Below Peter Thiel and James Altucher argue that going to college is a waste of time and resources. They argue that the current way college (and even education in general) is run is bloated inefficient and way to expensive. They make arguments that most would be better off skipping college altogether and going straight into the work force.
Before you argue why they are wrong, see the two links, they address many of the common arguments.
I am very sympathetic to their arguments and at the very least the way college is structured, from its core curriculum to degrees offered to the costs need to change. Many of the arguments Altucher lays out I agree with.
Thiel argues that colleges are run like a cartel, and like all cartels is makes the product worse. This line of reasoning made sense to me ...
But Thiel’s issues with education run even deeper. He thinks it’s fundamentally wrong for a society to pin people’s best hope for a better life on something that is by definition exclusionary. “If Harvard were really the best education, if it makes that much of a difference, why not franchise it so more people can attend? Why not create 100 Harvard affiliates?” he says. “It’s something about the scarcity and the status. In education your value depends on other people failing. Whenever Darwinism is invoked it’s usually a justification for doing something mean. It’s a way to ignore that people are falling through the cracks, because you pretend that if they could just go to Harvard, they’d be fine. Maybe that’s not true.”
So why doesn't Harvard use it $35 billion endowment to buy Marquette University (or fill in the blank) and rename it Harvard - Milwaukee? Why don't they do this in 100 locations around the world? Interesting question!
In addition to below, I have also argued that their is a coming collapse in college costs. First the large endowment elite universities are going to cut their cost to zero (because they have the resources to do it) and they the next level of universities will be forced to compete and radically cut back their costs and so on. While this sounds great to those of us that are parents, this will put enormous pressure on most universities because of lowered costs. They will respond with cost cutting efforts (such as online classes) and the entire experience of college will change from what we currently know.
Love to hear your thoughts on this.
The Pros and Cons of Going To College
James Altucher
August 2015
http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2015/08/college-pros-cons/
I was at a dinner once. Someone who was working for Mayor Bloomberg asked me, “Would you let someone who didn’t go to college give you brain surgery?”
I said, “It’s not about me. Would you let your son who has no interest in being a doctor, go to four years of school and another years of medical school just so he can operate on my brain even though he hates every minute of it and gets a million dollars into debt?”
The average person has 14 different careers in their life. But now because of the costs and the debt, they are chained to that first career forever.
Make the choices that allow you to cast away the chains as quickly as possible.
Go to the COLLEGE OF YOU. It has one course: every day wake up and ask, how can I improve 1% over where I was yesterday in any area of my life?
You have a mission here. Fly out of the nest and accomplish it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HM2Kp5Xj6s&app=desktop
Peter Thiel: U.S. College System as Corrupt as Church 500 Years Ago
http://www.youtube.com/v/-HM2Kp5Xj6s
Peter Thiel: We're in a Bubble and It's Not the Internet. It's Higher Education.
Posted Apr 10, 2011
https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/10/peter-thiel-were-in-a-bubble-and-its-not-the-internet-its-higher-education/
Instead, for Thiel, the bubble that has taken the place of housing is the higher education bubble. “A true bubble is when something is overvalued and intensely believed,” he says. “Education may be the only thing people still believe in in the United States. To question education is really dangerous. It is the absolute taboo. It’s like telling the world there’s no Santa Claus.”
Like the housing bubble, the education bubble is about security and insurance against the future. Both whisper a seductive promise into the ears of worried Americans: Do this and you will be safe. The excesses of both were always excused by a core national belief that no matter what happens in the world, these were the best investments you could make. Housing prices would always go up, and you will always make more money if you are college educated.
Like any good bubble, this belief– while rooted in truth– gets pushed to unhealthy levels. Thiel talks about consumption masquerading as investment during the housing bubble, as people would take out speculative interest-only loans to get a bigger house with a pool and tell themselves they were being frugal and saving for retirement. Similarly, the idea that attending Harvard is all about learning? Yeah. No one pays a quarter of a million dollars just to read Chaucer. The implicit promise is that you work hard to get there, and then you are set for life. It can lead to an unhealthy sense of entitlement. “It’s what you’ve been told all your life, and it’s how schools rationalize a quarter of a million dollars in debt,” Thiel says.
-
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/11/study-income-gap-between-young-college-and-high-school-grads-widens
"Among millennials ages 25 to 32, median annual earnings for full-time working college-degree holders are $17,500 greater than for those with high school diplomas only. That gap steadily widened for each successive generation in the latter half of the 20th century. As of 1986, the gap for late baby boomers ages 25 to 32 was just more than $14,200, and for early boomers in 1979, it was far smaller at $9,690. The gap for millennials is also more than twice as large as it was for the silent generation in 1965, when the gap for that cohort was just under $7,500 (all figures are in 2012 dollars)."
Until this changes, people will continue to go to college. Does this mean you *have* to go to college? Nope. Does it mean it's a golden ticket? Nope. But it means a lot.
-
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/11/study-income-gap-between-young-college-and-high-school-grads-widens
"Among millennials ages 25 to 32, median annual earnings for full-time working college-degree holders are $17,500 greater than for those with high school diplomas only. That gap steadily widened for each successive generation in the latter half of the 20th century. As of 1986, the gap for late baby boomers ages 25 to 32 was just more than $14,200, and for early boomers in 1979, it was far smaller at $9,690. The gap for millennials is also more than twice as large as it was for the silent generation in 1965, when the gap for that cohort was just under $7,500 (all figures are in 2012 dollars)."
Until this changes, people will continue to go to college. Does this mean you *have* to go to college? Nope. Does it mean it's a golden ticket? Nope. But it means a lot.
And if you net the extra pay against the expense of college, what is it the advantage? And if you remove STEM degrees (Science,Technology,Engineering,Medicine) what is it?
Restated, if you're paying well in excess of $150k over four years for a non-STEM degree, what is the advantage?
-
And if you net the extra pay against the expense of college, what is it the advantage? And if you remove STEM degrees (Science,Technology,Engineering,Medicine) what is it?
Restated, if you're paying well in excess of $150k over four years for a non-STEM degree, what is the advantage?
I was a non-STEM, non business major, but there is no way I would be making my current income without a college degree. Even if it cost me $150k, it would have been worth it. Other people going to the same school, with the same major, are making less. Some are making more.
Ultimately how far you advance depends on how smart and savvy you are, and on how hard you work. However for most people, that is going to be capped at some point without the degree. The problem is that it is hard to make that bet on someone's future when they are 18.
That's why, if my kid is a marginal student, I am not looking at a private school degree without a bunch of aid of some sort.
-
And if you net the extra pay against the expense of college, what is it the advantage? And if you remove STEM degrees (Science,Technology,Engineering,Medicine) what is it?
Restated, if you're paying well in excess of $150k over four years for a non-STEM degree, what is the advantage?
The advantage is getting a job. Most jobs (outside of physical labor/industrial) won't hire without a degree.
Should it be that way? Debatable. But in our world, it is that way.
-
And if you net the extra pay against the expense of college, what is it the advantage? And if you remove STEM degrees (Science,Technology,Engineering,Medicine) what is it?
Restated, if you're paying well in excess of $150k over four years for a non-STEM degree, what is the advantage?
That is why I think it is wise to send your kids to community college which prepare you for the "real world job" then go to the 4 year school to take all the "academic mumbo jumbo courses" to get the BA or BS at half the cost.
-
The advantage is getting a job. Most jobs (outside of physical labor/industrial) won't hire without a degree.
Should it be that way? Debatable. But in our world, it is that way.
James Altucher response to this ...
5) BOGUS INCOME STUDIES
Many universities, to tout their benefits, have done the exact same study: People who got a degree, 20 years later, have made up to $500,000, give or take, more in their career then people who didn’t have a degree.
This is a spurious study. It has no control group. It’s based on a demographic from the 1970s and 1980s when people from middle class families went to colleges and people from lower-class families, often didn’t.
This could be the entire reasons for the income difference but the studies don’t mention that.
Here’s a study: take everyone who got accepted to Harvard. Tell half of them you can’t go to college ever. Instead, get your four year head start on making money.
Then see who has more money 20 years later.
-
Is buying a house worth it? $350,000 with 10% down. Have to pay mortgage and property and liability insurance. Large closing costs. Interest payments. Property taxes go up at a rate much higher than COLAs. Rehab and maintenance fees. Local assessments paid by home owners. Garbage, water, sewer bills. Multi-decade loans. Property tax bills about 50%-60% of what rent might be. That is a lot of non-recoverable cost.
Historically, although not recently, constant appreciation, tax write offs, stability, freedom, roots, good schools. No constant moving costs. Those are the pluses.
Is real estate a better investment than education from a $$ perspective?
-
HS seniors should just buy AAPL & chill out
-
That is why I think it is wise to send your kids to community college which prepare you for the "real world job" then go to the 4 year school to take all the "academic mumbo jumbo courses" to get the BA or BS at half the cost.
What do you mean by "real world job"?
-
I don't get the Harvard-franchise argument. Schools like Harvard aren't superior because they have a better model that can be scaled up. They're superior because they have a concentration of the best professors and the best students. Creating more Harvards would just dilute that advantage. The scarcity of top level professors and fellow students is what makes it a better school.
-
James Altucher response to this ...
5) BOGUS INCOME STUDIES
Many universities, to tout their benefits, have done the exact same study: People who got a degree, 20 years later, have made up to $500,000, give or take, more in their career then people who didn’t have a degree.
This is a spurious study. It has no control group. It’s based on a demographic from the 1970s and 1980s when people from middle class families went to colleges and people from lower-class families, often didn’t.
This could be the entire reasons for the income difference but the studies don’t mention that.
Here’s a study: take everyone who got accepted to Harvard. Tell half of them you can’t go to college ever. Instead, get your four year head start on making money.
Then see who has more money 20 years later.
I'm not talking about income potential.
I'm talking about getting an interview. Or the listed requirements for a job. Many (most?) require a bachelor's to even be considered for the position.
-
I have often wondered that if going to college is actually more important for learning "general life skills" like critical thinking, problem solving, organization, self motivation, teamwork, cultural competency, and self sufficiency. When I go home and interact with friends and relatives who didn't go to college, that is where I notice the biggest gap. They have just as much "technical" knowledge as my college educated peers but some of these other skills are noticeably lacking. Personally, I find these more important to career success than technical skills. When I'm hiring somebody, I require a baseline of technical knowledge but really I'm looking at how organized they are, if they can solve problems, if they can communicate well, and if they are internally motivated. I can teach anyone the technical aspects of my job, but I don't have the skillset to teach these other skills.
Is college the best way to learn them? Not sure. Its the best way that I know how to teach them. Is college too expensive? Absolutely.
I think skipping college and going straight into the work force is good for a select few highly performing people. Or for people who are going to end up in a specialized trade like plumbing or auto repair. But I think for most people entering academica and corporate America, college is the better option.
-
Here’s a study: take everyone who got accepted to Harvard. Tell half of them you can’t go to college ever. Instead, get your four year head start on making money.
Then see who has more money 20 years later.
Isn't that fairly short sighted? 20 years would put you at what 38? Still a lot of prime earning years ahead of you. Years in which you would think the advantage in earning power would go to those that graduated, then again, maybe I only think that because I have been programmed to do so.
The answer is of course, it depends. For some (myself included) I would say it is definitely worth it. For others, maybe not so much. Each person has to make their own decision.
Some people don't need college. Some are too brilliant for it, and it is a waste of time. Others don't care for it or the end to which it leads. For many, college represents an opportunity to get a better job and earn more, or have a better lifestyle, than they would have been able to do otherwise.
-
I'm not talking about income potential.
I'm talking about getting an interview. Or the listed requirements for a job. Many (most?) require a bachelor's to even be considered for the position.
This is true too. Right or wrong, more and more jobs are requiring college degrees. Besides administrative assistants, every position in my department requires at least a Bachelor's degree. You literally won't get an interview if you don't have one. No exceptions. Most positions are also Masters' recommended. You can get an interview if you don't have one but you realistically won't get the job without one. We have around 40 people (not including administrative assistants) in my department and I can only think of one person who doesn't have a Master's, and she worked as police officer for 6 or 7 years.
-
This is true too. Right or wrong, more and more jobs are requiring college degrees. Besides administrative assistants, every position in my department requires at least a Bachelor's degree. You literally won't get an interview if you don't have one. No exceptions. Most positions are also Masters' recommended. You can get an interview if you don't have one but you realistically won't get the job without one. We have around 40 people (not including administrative assistants) in my department and I can only think of one person who doesn't have a Master's, and she worked as police officer for 6 or 7 years.
My WW2 era grandfather, without a college degree, worked his way up from being a clerk to being one of the top financial guys at a Fortune 500 company. His job would likely not only require a college degree today, but an MBA as well. He only retired about 35 years ago.
-
So we are in agreement that after high school one must spend 4 years and more than six figures to get a job interview?
To make my position clear, I agree with you that college is a valuable thing for someone between 18 and 22. But I agree with Thiel and Altucher that the way college is currently structured is all wrong. Altucher and Thiel make the case for how to change it.
-
So we are in agreement that after high school one must spend 4 years and more than six figures to get a job interview?
To make my position clear, I agree with you that college is a valuable thing for someone between 18 and 22. But I agree with Thiel and Altucher that the way college is currently structured is all wrong. Altucher and Thiel make the case for how to change it.
Thiel and Altucher don't know jack about education. Their stance on the issue reflects a complete lack of understanding of the education industry. Frankly, business leaders trying to enforce business ideals on education is what has led to the current problems in education.
Read the fall of the faculty, it highlights how the problem of education is business people thinking they know how to run education...and the increasing corporatization of higher ed.
-
The idea that faculty would do better at running higher education is laughable. Completely laughable. The operating environment that exists today is NOTHING like the environment that existed a generation or two ago.
-
The idea that faculty would do better at running higher education is laughable. Completely laughable. The operating environment that exists today is NOTHING like the environment that existed a generation or two ago.
Did I say the faculty would run it??? Pretty sure I said business people had no business running it/commenting on it.
What I said was that the corporatization of education is the problem in education. I'll stand by that, I have mountains of data/experience to support my stance. I have yet to see an example where business people came in and fixed problems...they have only made problems worse.
Individuals that spent their entire career in academics moving up the ranks of faculty-administration-leadership are the ones that know the industry best and should be the ones running the industry.
-
Did I say the faculty would run it??? Pretty sure I said business people had no business running it/commenting on it.
What I said was that the corporatization of education is the problem in education. I'll stand by that, I have mountains of data/experience to support my stance. I have yet to see an example where business people came in and fixed problems...they have only made problems worse.
Individuals that spent their entire career in academics moving up the ranks of faculty-administration-leadership are the ones that know the industry best and should be the ones running the industry.
Textbook thinking of everything that is wrong in higher education. No need to respond because you are beyond reason on this.
Only hope is you remain a looney fringe thinker in this area that no one takes seriously.
-
Textbook thinking of everything that is wrong in higher education. No need to respond because you are beyond reason on this.
Only hope is you remain a looney fringe thinker in this area that no one takes seriously.
Have you ever worked with a consulting firm on this issue? I have? I know multiple people at both Bain and Mckinnsey that specialize in this area. At one point McKinsey wanted to hire me to work as a consultant in this area. They admit, that they misunderstood academia and misapplied business principles in this sector.
I'll stay out of stock valuations debate, not my area. You stay out of academia, you know nothing of the ins and outs of this business, neither does Peter Thiel.
Stick to your area of expertise.
-
I would agree academia could stand to be run more like a business. But I also think that if left to their own devices, business minded types would ruin academia. As with most things, its probably somewhere in the middle.
-
I would agree academia could stand to be run more like a business. But I also think that if left to their own devices, business minded types would ruin academia. As with most things, its probably somewhere in the middle.
The only way you think this is you have a misunderstanding of what "business minded types" means.
Like everything else, their is a finite amount of resources. Whether Government, business or academia you cannot be everything to everyone. Choices must be made, and metrics must be made to make sure the choices desired are met.
Academia has shown time and again that cannot make choices and cannot measure that they are meeting those objectives. The simplest way to see this, of many, is the spiraling cost of education.
That is what a "business minded type" brings to the table. A way to control cost (aka, allocate resources) and meaure that those objectives are being met.
It does not mean some political agenda is at play, which is what I think you're implying when you say if taken too far it will ruin it.
-
The only way you think this is you have a misunderstanding of what "business minded types" means.
Like everything else, their is a finite amount of resources. Whether Government, business or academia you cannot be everything to everyone. Choices must be made, and metrics must be made to make sure the choices desired are met.
Academia has shown time and again that cannot make choices and cannot measure that they are meeting those objectives. The simplest way to see this, of many, is the spiraling cost of education.
That is what a "business minded type" brings to the table. A way to control cost (aka, allocate resources) and meaure that those objectives are being met.
It does not mean some political agenda is at play, which is what I think you're implying when you say if taken too far it will ruin it.
No political agenda. Not what I meant. I have spoken with business minded types about the cost of higher education. They often have grand ideas about ways to lower the cost that in most cases I have no doubt would work to a degree. But what I have often found is that they don't understand what the product of higher education is. Many of them seem to think universities are selling a degree. We aren't. We are selling education. Education isn't often pretty or efficient. Making sure our customers receive a true education often means inconveniencing them and telling them things that they don't want to hear. Its a customer service nightmare. The old adage of "the customer is always right" is never true in higher education. This drives business types crazy. Sure we could offer all our classes on line and that would save money. But that cheapens the value of the product too much. Sure we could cut all the liberal arts departments and that would save money. But that cheapens the product too much. Sure we could cut all of student affairs and that would save money but that would cheapen the product too much.
I think academia needs to be run more like a business, but not at the expense of education. There is a happy middle, it just needs to be found. One area that sticks out to me is in building on campus. Too often I think universities build projects without proper sponsorship and in ways that are too costly or inefficient. That's why I think things like Innovation Alley at Marquette are a great idea. Fusing the best of business and academia together.
The franchise idea is an interesting one. Its not the first time I have heard it. I remember a conversation where someone suggested that the the top Jesuit schools buy out the struggling ones and make branch campuses. You could have Marquette - Saint Louis (SLU), Marquette - Denver (Regis), Marquette - New Orleans (Loyola). Different schools could specialize in different areas and students could switch between campuses between semesters for a more specialized experience. Like study abroad but domestic. I don't have the business acumen to understand how it would save money, but it certainly sounded cool!
-
No political agenda. Not what I meant. I have spoken with business minded types about the cost of higher education. They often have grand ideas about ways to lower the cost that in most cases I have no doubt would work to a degree. But what I have often found is that they don't understand what the product of higher education is. Many of them seem to think universities are selling a degree. We aren't. We are selling education. Education isn't often pretty or efficient. Making sure our customers receive a true education often means inconveniencing them and telling them things that they don't want to hear. Its a customer service nightmare. The old adage of "the customer is always right" is never true in higher education. This drives business types crazy. Sure we could offer all our classes on line and that would save money. But that cheapens the value of the product too much. Sure we could cut all the liberal arts departments and that would save money. But that cheapens the product too much. Sure we could cut all of student affairs and that would save money but that would cheapen the product too much.
I think academia needs to be run more like a business, but not at the expense of education. There is a happy middle, it just needs to be found. One area that sticks out to me is in building on campus. Too often I think universities build projects without proper sponsorship and in ways that are too costly or inefficient. That's why I think things like Innovation Alley at Marquette are a great idea. Fusing the best of business and academia together.
The franchise idea is an interesting one. Its not the first time I have heard it. I remember a conversation where someone suggested that the the top Jesuit schools buy out the struggling ones and make branch campuses. You could have Marquette - Saint Louis (SLU), Marquette - Denver (Regis), Marquette - New Orleans (Loyola). Different schools could specialize in different areas and students could switch between campuses between semesters for a more specialized experience. Like study abroad but domestic. I don't have the business acumen to understand how it would save money, but it certainly sounded cool!
How do you measure "education?" What metric do you use to show you're a success?
Regarding education, is it all the same cost? Would you consider some degrees/classes/"education" worth a different price than others? What about the idea that STEM degree/class/"education" (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine) cost more than non-STEM degree/class/"education"? Why? Because the marketplace pays more for these degrees so charge more and use that money to subsidize non-STEM degrees (aka make them cheaper). What about reducing the costs of some classes, like say Freshman requirements, be having those online or taught by TAs.
Let me blunt, the cost of an education is outrageous. I'm disappointed that some here think that higher education must rip them off and bankrupt the typical family. It is incumbent on higher education to reduce the costs. They will not ... as the Peter Thiel noted in 2011:
At an event two weeks ago, I met Geoffrey Canada, one of the stars of the documentary “Waiting for Superman.” He talked about a college he advises that argued they couldn’t possible cut their fees for the simple reason that people would deem them to be less-prestigious.
He is 100% correct. If MU raised the money to go tuition-free they would not do it because of the belief that it cheapens an MU degree. That is why I've argued only Harvard can do this.
Point is education is broken and the scary part is the sheer number of people that honestly believe it is "special" so it should stay broken.
-
How do you measure "education?" What metric do you use to show you're a success?
Regarding education, is it all the same cost? Would you consider some degrees/classes/"education" worth a different price than others? What about the idea that STEM degree/class/"education" (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine) cost more than non-STEM degree/class/"education"? Why? Because the marketplace pays more for these degrees so charge more and use that money to subsidize non-STEM degrees (aka make them cheaper). What about reducing the costs of some classes, like say Freshman requirements, be having those online or taught by TAs.
Let me blunt, the cost of an education is outrageous. I'm disappointed that some here think that higher education must rip them off and bankrupt the typical family. It is incumbent on higher education to reduce the costs. They will not ... as the Peter Thiel noted in 2011:
At an event two weeks ago, I met Geoffrey Canada, one of the stars of the documentary “Waiting for Superman.” He talked about a college he advises that argued they couldn’t possible cut their fees for the simple reason that people would deem them to be less-prestigious.
He is 100% correct. If MU raised the money to go tuition-free they would not do it because of the belief that it cheapens an MU degree. That is why I've argued only Harvard can do this.
Point is education is broken and the scary part is the sheer number of people that honestly believe it is "special" so it should stay broken.
The 'M' in STEM stands for Math. Just thought I'd put that out there.
-
How do you measure "education?" What metric do you use to show you're a success?
Regarding education, is it all the same cost? Would you consider some degrees/classes/"education" worth a different price than others? What about the idea that STEM degree/class/"education" (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine) cost more than non-STEM degree/class/"education"? Why? Because the marketplace pays more for these degrees so charge more and use that money to subsidize non-STEM degrees (aka make them cheaper). What about reducing the costs of some classes, like say Freshman requirements, be having those online or taught by TAs.
Let me blunt, the cost of an education is outrageous. I'm disappointed that some here think that higher education must rip them off and bankrupt the typical family. It is incumbent on higher education to reduce the costs. They will not ... as the Peter Thiel noted in 2011:
At an event two weeks ago, I met Geoffrey Canada, one of the stars of the documentary “Waiting for Superman.” He talked about a college he advises that argued they couldn’t possible cut their fees for the simple reason that people would deem them to be less-prestigious.
He is 100% correct. If MU raised the money to go tuition-free they would not do it because of the belief that it cheapens an MU degree. That is why I've argued only Harvard can do this.
Point is education is broken and the scary part is the sheer number of people that honestly believe it is "special" so it should stay broken.
No, both you and him are wrong. Good sign you shouldn't discuss these things, since you don't know enough about them is that you think M in STEM stands for Medicine.
The principle you have wrong is based on the ideals of business people, applying business principles where they do not belong. Most of the problems you are concerned with in Education were derived from business people trying to apply business concepts to education.
Its not that business and education cannot mix, it is that educational experts with some business acumen should be directing the industry...right now you have people with business acumen and NO educational experience thinking that since they know business they know what is best for education. That has and will always lead to poor decisions and problems.
-
The principle you have wrong is based on the ideals of business people, applying business principles where they do not belong. Most of the problems you are concerned with in Education were derived from business people trying to apply business concepts to education.
Bingo. The same thing has happened in healthcare, where many large medical centers and insurance companies are run by MBAs instead of MDs.
Business people have a lot to being to the table, but they should not be making the major decisions in education any more than they should be making the major decisions in healthcare. Education should be focused on students, just like healthcare should be focused on patients.
-
Bingo. The same thing has happened in healthcare, where many large medical centers and insurance companies are run by MBAs instead of MDs.
Business people have a lot to being to the table, but they should not be making the major decisions in education any more than they should be making the major decisions in healthcare. Education should be focused on students, just like healthcare should be focused on patients.
Having worked for a healthcare system that was run by MDs, I can tell you that there need to be some MBAs in the decision-making process as well.
-
Having worked for a healthcare system that was run by MDs, I can tell you that there need to be some MBAs in the decision-making process as well.
I never said they shouldn't be involved - in fact, I specifically said that business people bring a lot to the table.
I said they should not be making the major decisions. Provide input and guidance, and let the docs make the final decisions.
-
No, both you and him are wrong. Good sign you shouldn't discuss these things, since you don't know enough about them is that you think M in STEM stands for Medicine.
The principle you have wrong is based on the ideals of business people, applying business principles where they do not belong. Most of the problems you are concerned with in Education were derived from business people trying to apply business concepts to education.
Its not that business and education cannot mix, it is that educational experts with some business acumen should be directing the industry...right now you have people with business acumen and NO educational experience thinking that since they know business they know what is best for education. That has and will always lead to poor decisions and problems.
I get it, you have every answer on this subject and the rest of us should just shut up because we're too stupid to have an opinion.
What you fail to understand that the problem is you and your own arrogance.
Education failures are precisely because your ideas get traction.
-
Having worked for a healthcare system that was run by MDs, I can tell you that there need to be some MBAs in the decision-making process as well.
The biggest problem in healthcare is that doctors run these institutions. See Ben Carson ... he can operate on me or my kids anytime but should not run any type of organization.
Most Doctors are only qualified to stick thermometers in rectums and misdiagnose problems and little more.
-
Bingo. The same thing has happened in healthcare, where many large medical centers and insurance companies are run by MBAs instead of MDs.
Business people have a lot to being to the table, but they should not be making the major decisions in education any more than they should be making the major decisions in healthcare. Education should be focused on students, just like healthcare should be focused on patients.
I'm going all "forgetful'" on you .... I'm an expert in businesspeople, you don't understand what they do or how they do it. You need to stop posting on this subject because you're not qualified to offer an opinion.
-
How do you measure "education?" What metric do you use to show you're a success?
Regarding education, is it all the same cost? Would you consider some degrees/classes/"education" worth a different price than others? What about the idea that STEM degree/class/"education" (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine) cost more than non-STEM degree/class/"education"? Why? Because the marketplace pays more for these degrees so charge more and use that money to subsidize non-STEM degrees (aka make them cheaper). What about reducing the costs of some classes, like say Freshman requirements, be having those online or taught by TAs.
Let me blunt, the cost of an education is outrageous. I'm disappointed that some here think that higher education must rip them off and bankrupt the typical family. It is incumbent on higher education to reduce the costs. They will not ... as the Peter Thiel noted in 2011:
At an event two weeks ago, I met Geoffrey Canada, one of the stars of the documentary “Waiting for Superman.” He talked about a college he advises that argued they couldn’t possible cut their fees for the simple reason that people would deem them to be less-prestigious.
He is 100% correct. If MU raised the money to go tuition-free they would not do it because of the belief that it cheapens an MU degree. That is why I've argued only Harvard can do this.
Point is education is broken and the scary part is the sheer number of people that honestly believe it is "special" so it should stay broken.
I think most universities use several metrics to measure their success. 6 year graduation rate, GPA, persistence, and job placement rate just to name some of the major ones.
While I'm sure Geoffrey Canada's experience is 100% generalizable to all universities....I think most universities are aware of and trying to cut cost of education.
I have mixed feelings about making different degrees cost different amounts of money. On one hand, it makes sense financially. It costs more to educate an engineer than it does to educate a history teacher. The engineer is also likely to make a lot more and thus be able to afford the greater debt. However, I am worried about setting up a system where only a certain class of people can afford to major in STEM, thus continuing the cycle of poverty. Doesn't mean its a non-starter, just something to keep in consideration.
I do agree that the cost of education is out of control. I do agree that universities need to be run more like businesses. I do agree the higher education system is broken. I agree with a lot of your points so I'm not sure why your answer is so hostile. I'm just not ready to elect Peter Thiel the Secretary of Education.....I'm concerned enough with DeVos.
-
I get it, you have every answer on this subject and the rest of us should just shut up because we're too stupid to have an opinion.
What you fail to understand that the problem is you and your own arrogance.
Education failures are precisely because your ideas get traction.
1. You don't know me.
2. Never said I had all the answers, I respect TAMU/Boombatz opinions here because they have experience in education. The problem is when people with no background in the area think their completely unrelated experience Trumps actual experience and knowledge within the field.
2b. In fact, I know many way more knowledgable than I, that I would defer to in a heartbeat. Thiel is not one of them, based on the little I know about your background/expertise, you are also not one of them...but maybe you can prove me wrong. So far, you've just copied and pasted the uninformed opinion of other and claimed their superiority over anyone else, because you agree with them...that does not an argument make.
3. You've managed to, despite not knowing me, not knowing anything about my background in education and business, not knowing any of my actual ideas regarding the subject at hand, decided that education failures are a result of my ideas...who is the arrogant one again?
-
I think most universities use several metrics to measure their success. 6 year graduation rate, GPA, persistence, and job placement rate just to name some of the major ones.
While I'm sure Geoffrey Canada's experience is 100% generalizable to all universities....I think most universities are aware of and trying to cut cost of education.
I have mixed feelings about making different degrees cost different amounts of money. On one hand, it makes sense financially. It costs more to educate an engineer than it does to educate a history teacher. The engineer is also likely to make a lot more and thus be able to afford the greater debt. However, I am worried about setting up a system where only a certain class of people can afford to major in STEM, thus continuing the cycle of poverty. Doesn't mean its a non-starter, just something to keep in consideration.
I do agree that the cost of education is out of control. I do agree that universities need to be run more like businesses. I do agree the higher education system is broken. I agree with a lot of your points so I'm not sure why your answer is so hostile. I'm just not ready to elect Peter Thiel the Secretary of Education.....I'm concerned enough with DeVos.
The bolded is factually incorrect. Your typical History/Liberal arts department cost more to maintain then they generate in revenue. STEM fields are revenue generating departments. There are a number of practical reasons this is the case, one of which is research $$ and technology rights. Both of these generate more than enough to offset the increased expenses due to infrastructure and faculty salaries. An additional factor is the ability to have very large class sizes for most of the core courses in these disciplines, whereas History/Liberal Arts has many "intimate" highly specialized courses. Not to mention lab fees that recoup the entire cost of running labs (and actually function as an additional revenue source as the fee-revenue exceeds costs to run the labs).
If one were to price college education based on degree plans, with the goal in mind of maintaining all departments as revenue neutral, cost of education would skyrocket in the Humanities/Arts and fall in STEM. This would run counter productive to the ability to finance/pay back student loans.
-
Hands down, this isn't even a discussion. Education, at any level, makes you a better, smarter, more curious, more well-rounded, worldly, socially, family and civically active person. If we can make a few more scheckels on the side, nirvana.
A house and a car are things. Friendships, ideas, even you musckarats, are all worth a world of fulfillment, ai-na? Add in a Bo Ellis when you grew up in Cracker Town, life is fulfilled.
-
https://youtu.be/1lyu1KKwC74
-
Going to college was worth it to me.
Where else would I have learned how to shoot a beer?
Where else would I have memorized every word of Thick As A Brick while I smoked from a bong taller than me?
Where else would I have found a hoopster cooler than Sam Worthen to cheer for?
Where else would I have developed at least kind of a clue about how to please the ladies?
Where else would I have learned to not say things like "how to please the ladies"?
Where else would I have cheated, along with Glenn Rivers and several others, on Charlie Nader's tests in team sports?
Where else would I have discovered that religion is even more of a sham than I thought it was?
Where else would I have found the woman who would become my wife of 33 years?
And so on and so on and so on.
Damn right it was worth it!
-
Going to college was worth it to me.
Where else would I have learned how to shoot a beer?
Where else would I have memorized every word of Thick As A Brick while I smoked from a bong taller than me?
Where else would I have found a hoopster cooler than Sam Worthen to cheer for?
Where else would I have developed at least kind of a clue about how to please the ladies?
Where else would I have learned to not say things like "how to please the ladies"?
Where else would I have cheated, along with Glenn Rivers and several others, on Charlie Nader's tests in team sports?
Where else would I have discovered that religion is even more of a sham than I thought it was?
Where else would I have found the woman who would become my wife of 33 years?
And so on and so on and so on.
Damn right it was worth it!
+1
... and today all of this is yours for $150k to $200k
-
I'm going all "forgetful'" on you .... I'm an expert in businesspeople, you don't understand what they do or how they do it. You need to stop posting on this subject because you're not qualified to offer an opinion.
Good for you.
If you want to tell your kids not to go to college, have at it.
-
Good for you.
If you want to tell your kids not to go to college, have at it.
This what I wrote in poat #1
I am very sympathetic to their arguments and at the very least the way college is structured, from its core curriculum to degrees offered to the costs need to change. Many of the arguments Altucher lays out I agree with.
I'm all for going to college, I just think the way they force an outdated core curriculum and the outrageous costs need to be changed, and radically changed. So things like online courses, variable costs for degrees and/or courses, and even franchising should strongly be considered.
I think the Altucher and Thiel are saying the current way college is structured is an incredible waste of time and resources. That I agree with. It is broken and needs to be changed.
-
The bolded is factually incorrect. Your typical History/Liberal arts department cost more to maintain then they generate in revenue. STEM fields are revenue generating departments. There are a number of practical reasons this is the case, one of which is research $$ and technology rights. Both of these generate more than enough to offset the increased expenses due to infrastructure and faculty salaries. An additional factor is the ability to have very large class sizes for most of the core courses in these disciplines, whereas History/Liberal Arts has many "intimate" highly specialized courses. Not to mention lab fees that recoup the entire cost of running labs (and actually function as an additional revenue source as the fee-revenue exceeds costs to run the labs).
If one were to price college education based on degree plans, with the goal in mind of maintaining all departments as revenue neutral, cost of education would skyrocket in the Humanities/Arts and fall in STEM. This would run counter productive to the ability to finance/pay back student loans.
This is true, I was looking purely at the costs not the revenue they bring in.
-
Waste of time and resources is strong. Inefficient and expensive sure. The existence is still extremely valuable. Very few would benefit more from not going to college than going to college IMHO.
-
I was a non-STEM, non business major, but there is no way I would be making my current income without a college degree. Even if it cost me $150k, it would have been worth it. Other people going to the same school, with the same major, are making less. Some are making more.
Ultimately how far you advance depends on how smart and savvy you are, and on how hard you work.
Wow, Vinnie, we agree!
College is more than technical training. If it is just technical training, most people could do it in about 2.5 years (except for you engineers). What college does is teach you how to think. How to see the world differently than the _________ (fill in the blank) world you grew up in. For me, it meant bursting out of the Bubba capital of the known universe and learning from some fascinating people who will never know what difference they made for me.
I will be eternally indebted to Marquette for the exposure they gave me to new ways of thinking; to ideas that are a core part of my life. The dull and often boring professors in the 1970s who I thought were really out of touch were more on the cutting edge than I imagined.
And, we won a f___ing national championship!!!!!!!!
Whether Marquette's costs are out of control is another story. They are and O'Hara Hall (or wherever they hang out today) knows it! But we must separate cost containment and efficiency from the core mission of the university.
-
Where else would I have found the woman who would become my wife of 33 years?
Damn right it was worth it!
For that alone, it was worth every damn cent!
36 years here and going strong!
-
I can't imagine the person I would be if I hadn't gone to college, and I'm sure I wouldn't have been as happy. The undergrad requirement of taking a fine arts course was one I dreaded, and I was basically dragged kicking and screaming to my first art history class. A few years later and I've dedicated significant amounts of money to visiting the Louvre, the Met, the National Gallery (England), the British Museum, the Art Institute of Chicago and many smaller and less known museums. I wouldn't take any amount of money in return for those experiences.
-
For that alone, it was worth every damn cent!
36 years here and going strong!
Congrats, dg!
My parents paid for most of my education and I had only a couple thou in loans, but my wife-to-be had well into the 5-figures, so I musta been in love because I married debt!
In my little tome above, I forgot (how could I have) ...
Where else would I have found the guys I STILL consider my very best friends?
-
I can't imagine the person I would be if I hadn't gone to college, and I'm sure I wouldn't have been as happy. The undergrad requirement of taking a fine arts course was one I dreaded, and I was basically dragged kicking and screaming to my first art history class. A few years later and I've dedicated significant amounts of money to visiting the Louvre, the Met, the National Gallery (England), the British Museum, the Art Institute of Chicago and many smaller and less known museums. I wouldn't take any amount of money in return for those experiences.
Congrats, dg!
My parents paid for most of my education and I had only a couple thou in loans, but my wife-to-be had well into the 5-figures, so I musta been in love because I married debt!
In my little tome above, I forgot (how could I have) ...
Where else would I have found the guys I STILL consider my very best friends?
MU82, is the exact same experience worth it for a kid from a lower income family graduating with $150k in debt?
DG, same question, is this worth a $150k outlay where you're paying it off until 35?
-
This article seems to make the case that college is now elitist as it shows poor kids do as well as rich kids but simply don't go because they cannot afford it. College is not the way you became a 1%, it is for kids from 1% families so they can stay 1%.
(the article is full of interactive graphics, you type in MU and it will add it to all the tables)
Some Colleges Have More Students From the Top 1 Percent Than the Bottom 60. Find Yours.
JAN. 18, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html
-
This article seems to make the case that college is now elitist as it shows poor kids do as well as rich kids but simply don't go because they cannot afford it. College is not the way you became a 1%, it is for kids from 1% families so they can stay 1%.
(the article is full of interactive graphics, you type in MU and it will add it to all the tables)
Some Colleges Have More Students From the Top 1 Percent Than the Bottom 60. Find Yours.
JAN. 18, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html
So you are in favor of making college free for all?
-
So you are in favor of making college free for all?
Need to break the perception that "expensive means good" and start pricing it like most every other product we buy. Then prices will fall.
-
MU82, is the exact same experience worth it for a kid from a lower income family graduating with $150k in debt?
DG, same question, is this worth a $150k outlay where you're paying it off until 35?
If the family is low enough income, the student will receive significant financial aid - I'm talking about grants that don't have to be paid back. If the student is smart enough, numerous top universities already are providing free tuition, including most of the Ivies.
Otherwise, how about 2 years at a community college followed by 2 years at one of the great public universities that every state has?
An Illinois student, for example, could do a lot worse than 2 years at Truman College getting all the basic courses out of the way and figuring out what he/she wants to major in and then 2 years at UIC or U of I.
There probably would still be debt, but it wouldn't be anywhere near $150K.
Those big numbers are scare-tactic numbers. Most college students, even poor ones, don't graduate with anywhere near that.
http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data
Seven in 10 seniors (68%) who graduated from public and nonprofit colleges in 2015 had student loan debt, with an average of $30,100 per borrower.
You don't need 4 years (or more) at Yale, Notre Dame or even Marquette to get a great education that will be "worth it"! Stop looking at worse-case scenarios!
-
If the family is low enough income, the student will receive significant financial aid - I'm talking about grants that don't have to be paid back. If the student is smart enough, numerous top universities already are providing free tuition, including most of the Ivies.
Otherwise, how about 2 years at a community college followed by 2 years at one of the great public universities that every state has?
An Illinois student, for example, could do a lot worse than 2 years at Truman College getting all the basic courses out of the way and figuring out what he/she wants to major in and then 2 years at UIC or U of I.
There probably would still be debt, but it wouldn't be anywhere near $150K.
Those big numbers are scare-tactic numbers. Most college students, even poor ones, don't graduate with anywhere near that.
http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data
Seven in 10 seniors (68%) who graduated from public and nonprofit colleges in 2015 had student loan debt, with an average of $30,100 per borrower.
You don't need 4 years (or more) at Yale, Notre Dame or even Marquette to get a great education that will be "worth it"! Stop looking at worse-case scenarios!
You think A Truman/UIC degree is worth that?
-
Need to break the perception that "expensive means good" and start pricing it like most every other product we buy. Then prices will fall.
Aren't prices set by supply and demand? Same principles govern college education prices.
-
You think A Truman/UIC degree is worth that?
$30,000 in debt? For many students, most definitely. As someone who works for a school with roughly the same profile as UIC, our students graduate with levels of debt at that level at the most. Most have graduated to jobs where they can handle that level of debt too.
-
You think A Truman/UIC degree is worth that?
Actually, the UIC part isn't even necessary.
My wife went back to school at age 40 - Truman College - and got a 2-year associate degree in nursing. She is now in her 13th year as a pediatric nurse. She has been promoted numerous times, wins awards, and makes a pretty doggone good salary.
Her Truman education cost a few thousand dollars. There were about 300 people in her graduating class, and the college claimed more than 80% already had been placed in jobs.
Her Truman degree was "worth" more than her 4-year Marquette degree, financially. But if she hadn't gone to Marquette, she wouldn't have gotten me. So that was worth it to her, too!!
-
Honestly, I think the most realistic remedy is better education on loans and college finances in high school. My fiance went to LIU Post for her undergrad. Tuition costs roughly the same if not more than a Marquette despite not having nearly the prestige or profile and being near bankruptcy. She went there because her mom went there and as a 17 year old she didn't understand how much debt she was talking on and that there were cheaper options where she would have gotten a better education. She has said that if she knew what she knows now, she would have gone to a SUNY and ended up with maybe 10% of the derby she has now.
College counselors in high school are woefully underprepared and underfunded. I bet we'd see a lot less debt issues if we did the education up front.
-
Honestly, I think the most realistic remedy is better education on loans and college finances in high school. My fiance went to LIU Post for her undergrad. Tuition costs roughly the same if not more than a Marquette despite not having nearly the prestige or profile and being near bankruptcy. She went there because her mom went there and as a 17 year old she didn't understand how much debt she was talking on and that there were cheaper options where she would have gotten a better education. She has said that if she knew what she knows now, she would have gone to a SUNY and ended up with maybe 10% of the derby she has now.
College counselors in high school are woefully underprepared and underfunded. I bet we'd see a lot less debt issues if we did the education up front.
Well said.
-
Honestly, I think the most realistic remedy is better education on loans and college finances in high school. My fiance went to LIU Post for her undergrad. Tuition costs roughly the same if not more than a Marquette despite not having nearly the prestige or profile and being near bankruptcy. She went there because her mom went there and as a 17 year old she didn't understand how much debt she was talking on and that there were cheaper options where she would have gotten a better education. She has said that if she knew what she knows now, she would have gone to a SUNY and ended up with maybe 10% of the derby she has now.
College counselors in high school are woefully underprepared and underfunded. I bet we'd see a lot less debt issues if we did the education up front.
I agree with this to a certain extent. However, with no disrespect meant towards your fiance, it's a HS student's responsibility to do the research and look at tuition costs, college rankings, etc. The high school should obviously play a part in helping students weigh their options and make an informed decision but ultimately it falls on the student and his/her family.
Honestly, I think a disproportionately high number of students choose their college based almost entirely on how much they enjoy their visit and very little else.
-
MU82, is the exact same experience worth it for a kid from a lower income family graduating with $150k in debt?
DG, same question, is this worth a $150k outlay where you're paying it off until 35?
My parents never made more than $30k between them when I was growing up. There are scholarships available for those willing to work for them, and very few wind up paying sticker price for college. For me, it was worth it although I would seriously question anyone taking out $150k in loans in their early 20s.
-
One more point;
The $150k number has been thrown around a lot, I realize only by the OP, but is that a realistic number? I was thrown off by it because my undergrad numbers were more around $18k when all is said and done (I received significant need-based grants and a pretty solid 4 year scholarship, also worked as a delivery driver, which I highly recommend for students due to flexibility and relatively high pay). That increased significantly in grad school, but I'm still nowhere near $150k. Looking things up, it appears that the average debt for the class of 2016 is $37,172 ( https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/ ) and Marquette averages $7,690 per year for a total of $30,760 over 4 years ( http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/marquette-university/paying-for-college/student-loan-debt/# ). I think that is well worth it to become a better person and get a better job.
-
I agree with this to a certain extent. However, with no disrespect meant towards your fiance, it's a HS student's responsibility to do the research and look at tuition costs, college rankings, etc. The high school should obviously play a part in helping students weigh their options and make an informed decision but ultimately it falls on the student and his/her family.
Honestly, I think a disproportionately high number of students choose their college based almost entirely on how much they enjoy their visit and very little else.
I agree. But like anything in life, its hard to know the right questions to ask and things to look at when you are doing something for the first time. Her mother didn't take out any loans because the cost was a lot less when she went and her dad didn't graduate high school. I think there's responsibility on the student, the parents, the high school, and the loan givers. I think we place entirely too much responsibility onto 17 year olds who have never been educated on this topic before
-
Honestly, I think the most realistic remedy is better education on loans and college finances in high school. My fiance went to LIU Post for her undergrad. Tuition costs roughly the same if not more than a Marquette despite not having nearly the prestige or profile and being near bankruptcy. She went there because her mom went there and as a 17 year old she didn't understand how much debt she was talking on and that there were cheaper options where she would have gotten a better education. She has said that if she knew what she knows now, she would have gone to a SUNY and ended up with maybe 10% of the derby she has now.
College counselors in high school are woefully underprepared and underfunded. I bet we'd see a lot less debt issues if we did the education up front.
Here's another good idea being promoted by IU:
Troubled by an increase in student loan defaults, Indiana University decided to tell prospective borrowers what their monthly payment would be after graduation and how much they would owe. That information had a dramatic effect on students’ willingness to borrow: Federal undergraduate Stafford loan disbursements at the public university dropped 11 percent, or $31 million, in the nine months that ended March 31 from a year earlier
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-17/how-indiana-university-cut-student-debt
Another remedy is to tell students (once they are in college) what the reality of the job market is. My friends in the private sector tell me that students come out of college--still wet behind the ears--and expect to make $70k with a marketing degree and be promoted to manager within two years.
If those salary/promotion expectations are widespread, they need to be broken.
-
Aren't prices set by supply and demand? Same principles govern college education prices.
Doesn't the wide availability of loans somewhat skew the traditional supply and demand?
-
Doesn't the wide availability of loans somewhat skew the traditional supply and demand?
Do you say the same thing about car prices, home values etc., no, so why apply it here it makes no sense. There are loans for every type of major purchase. That is part of the whole system of supply, demand and financing.
So is the idea of luxury (ivy league), which demand a premium, even though they typically do not actually provide a better product (not true in terms of top schools, which do provide a better product).
College education prices follow supply and demand. That is why there is so much pressure on higher education institutions to keep price increases at less than 5% annually. If they do not, demand will fall.
-
My parents never made more than $30k between them when I was growing up. There are scholarships available for those willing to work for them, and very few wind up paying sticker price for college. For me, it was worth it although I would seriously question anyone taking out $150k in loans in their early 20s.
Isn't MU sticker price $33k/year? Add in $10k/year for room and board and their is your $150k total price tag.
-
Isn't MU sticker price $33k/year? Add in $10k/year for room and board and their is your $150k total price tag.
I seriously doubt more than 10% of MU students pay anywhere near sticker price. A good part time job will cover most living expenses
-
Hey can someone please photoshop trump's wife in MU baby blue gear?
-
I seriously doubt more than 10% of MU students pay anywhere near sticker price. A good part time job will cover most living expenses
Actually I underestimated MU's costs ...
2016–17 undergraduate tuition and costs
Cost of Attendance $53,218
Tuition and Fees $38,470
Room and Board $11,440
Books and Supplies $1,008
Other Expenses $2,300
71% of the undergraduates get financial aid so 29% pay the sticker price ($212k for four years), not less than 10%.
The 79% getting financial aid get an average of $25,701/year in aid meaning that still pay $27,517/yr in costs ($53,218 - $25,701). This is $110,168 for 4 years. (higher if costs go up)
The average amount of debt for a 2015 graduate was $37,048 (meaning that half had more). So that means Mom and Dad forked over $70k to $125k over four years to leave Junior with an average of $37k in debt
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1768
Do you say the same thing about car prices, home values etc., no, so why apply it here it makes no sense. There are loans for every type of major purchase. That is part of the whole system of supply, demand and financing.
So is the idea of luxury (ivy league), which demand a premium, even though they typically do not actually provide a better product (not true in terms of top schools, which do provide a better product).
College education prices follow supply and demand. That is why there is so much pressure on higher education institutions to keep price increases at less than 5% annually. If they do not, demand will fall.
Are you asking if home debt skewed home prices? Where you in a coma from 2006 to 2010, the financial crisis?
Your last line is correct, college tuition is priced like art or Jewelry. If it does not cost a ton of money, it must not be good. So we base our perception of what is a good school by how much it costs.
-
nm
-
71% of the undergraduates get financial aid so 29% pay the sticker price ($212k for four years), not less than 10%.
Could be wrong but I don't believe scholarships are covered in financial aid. I'm not sure if grants are or not. I'm also not sure about work study. So more than 71% might not pay the sticker price.
Marquette is also on the high end for tuition. There are much cheaper options available that I believe a majority of students end up at.
-
Could be wrong but I don't believe scholarships are covered in financial aid. I'm not sure if grants are or not. I'm also not sure about work study. So more than 71% might not pay the sticker price.
Marquette is also on the high end for tuition. There are much cheaper options available that I believe a majority of students end up at.
See the link, that is the all-in number
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1768
-
Are you asking if home debt skewed home prices? Where you in a coma from 2006 to 2010, the financial crisis?
Your last line is correct, college tuition is priced like art or Jewelry. If it does not cost a ton of money, it must not be good. So we base our perception of what is a good school by how much it costs.
Home prices were skewed slightly, because of predatory loans tied to assuming annual increases in home values of 10% or more. That led to immense pressure on the system that was unsustainable, coupled to fraudulent activities by major banks it led a massive economic collapse. The economic collapse made home buying unattainable exacerbating the slight inflation of home values. In the vast majority of areas, the collapse has fully rebounded and home valuations are back to where they were pre-collapse. In some markets home values have skyrocketed again. My home, purchased at the bottom in 2010, is now worth 70% more than we paid for it in 2010. The home valuation issues were more to do with the economic collapse (and response to fraudulent banking activities) than it was to availability of loans.
Student loans are permanent, there is no declaring bankruptcy and they often persist through death. They (in response to buck chuckler) are not artificially depressed rates, instead they are actually usually well above market rate for other types of loans, especially given that they persist through bankruptcy.
That's why banks love doing student loan refinances, guaranteed revenue, little risk.
Your comment on us determining educational value based on how much it costs is patently false and couldn't be more ignorant of the truth.
What is a better college USC or BYU? I would say they are about equal. USC costs about 55k per year, BYU 5.5K. There are an infinite number of examples like this.
I've never met a student that was thinking about going to go to a college and then heard it was cheap and said...nah, must be a bad University. I have heard them justify going to an expensive college by realization of the quality of education or (and often) by the overall quality of the experience.
The latter is most often the justification. Kids/parents believe they are not paying for the education, but the lifetime worth of experiences, whose value cannot be emphasized enough.
Business people trying to take over academia have over focused on the latter by providing bigger and more stuff not related to education that has driven up costs and led to gross inefficiency in academia.
I seriously advise you to read fall of the faculty if you have an interest in this area, inform yourself of all sides of the issue first, before touting and pushing the uninformed ideals of people like Thiel. The answer is typically somewhere in the middle, right now you are choosing one side...the least informed side.
-
See the link, that is the all-in number
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1768
Thanks for that link. I was curious about some of the numbers also re. merit/need.
One key thing to remember is that the 29% is not even applying for financial aid. Those are likely of the demographic where the cost of college is minuscule to the net worth of the families, hence no worry even to apply for financial aid. That group also contains most of the foreign students, who are targeted explicitly because they will pay full book rate.
The rest, on average are paying only 27k total per year for college, for a grand total of right at $100k. Given that college will boost average salary (this is current millennial only, so does not consider long term income potential) $17.5k per year. Devoting that extra income to your debt you'd pay it off in 6 years.
That income gap though grows significantly with time since graduation, so it is even more of a bargain.
What I'd like to see as a govt' initiative is to allow graduates to devote as much of their income as they wish, tax free, to pay off student loans.
-
Forget,
Why don't the high endowment schools like the Ivies, Stanford, Chicago, MIT, etc. even charge tuition? It is well established they can run the universities without charging tuition?
Again, I'm only talking about the select high endowment prestigious universities. Why don't they pull the trigger and say it's free?
-
Forget,
Why don't the high endowment schools like the Ivies, Stanford, Chicago, MIT, etc. even charge tuition? It is well established they can run the universities without charging tuition?
Again, I'm only talking about the select high endowment prestigious universities. Why don't they pull the trigger and say it's free?
They have done that. Most of those schools provide 100% of need and if you are below something like 60k per year, 100% free. They don't do it for everyone, because they can't do that yet, while still being able to invest in cutting edge research.
The latter is also part of their mission, and in many regards the bigger part of their mission.
To address other potential questions, they do not franchise/expand, because then they wouldn't be able to provide essentially free school and maintain the highest levels of research that is the major aspect of their mission.
They've also provided many of their course materials online (lectures, tests etc.), free for anyone. Expect in 20 years, for them to offer some kind of DIY degree using their trove of online courses. Other large universities have considered similar models.
Currently the logistics for achieving that and maintaining/verifying the highest quality is not available.
Also, the business people typically kill consideration of any such models as it is contrary to the profit model of education.
-
MU82, is the exact same experience worth it for a kid from a lower income family graduating with $150k in debt?
DG, same question, is this worth a $150k outlay where you're paying it off until 35?
OK, you asked and I am taking the bait.
I was graduated in 1978 and my wife in 1979. She had debt and like MU82, my parents paid for mine. My wife's debt was relatively small because she worked while she was in school. The total debt we had was about $3,000, as I recall. Remember folks, that was 1980. My father worked his way through MU as a full-time postman and swore that was something he did not want his children to have to do.
I told both of my children that if they could do Marquette work and wanted to go Marquette, I'd find a way. Both have overcome significant learning disabilities (they were adopted from abroad) and are going to school at SIU Carbondale, which has a best-in-the-nation program to support students with learning disabilities. Both still are die-hard Marquette basketball fans (neither has yet to attend a Saluki basketball game) and go with me at Christmas breaks.
All that said, while I have supported Marquette generously over the years, I am disgusted at the cost of an MU education. I had one Marquette representative tell me, "well everyone else is priced this way," to which I said, "I am not everyone else. I am Marquette!" Father Pilarz told me one evening that MU's tuition was necessary because students demanded better recreational facilities and better dorms. I had a really difficult time writing the check after that one.
I won't even get into what the FAFSA said I could afford for college. My response to Ms. Dgies was, "yeah, if I wanted to live under a bridge and rely on the government for retirement!"
The fact is college costs are out of control for some of the same reasons medical costs are out of control -- third party payers. The extreme liberal bent of most colleges also comes out insofar as they can soak well-to-do people to cover their costs and inefficiencies. At SIU, I have two children there but I somehow think I am paying for about 3.5 to 4 students to go there.
Marquette has to get its costs under control. It has to slow the tuition increases and it has to do what it did years ago with Dent Hy -- decide there are some programs that don't make sense and send them to the bottom of Lake Michigan. What those are, I don't know. But I do know this, $150,000 for a Journalism degree that will yield a $35,000 job makes no sense anywhere except in academia.
-
On a somewhat related note, according to the Marquette website the Blue and Gold fund has currently fully endowed 96 of Marquette's 126 athletic scholarships. When this goal is completed is there any chance they start using Blue and Gold to fund achievement scholarships? This seems like a good way to control some of the rising costs.
As another aside, I wonder if the fact that so many are now fully endowed allowed them to add lacrosse and those are the remaining un-endowed scholarships. Either way, the lacrosse scholarships allow many more students to attend MU at a more affordable price point so I am happy to have the sport.
-
Oops, double post.
-
Isn't MU sticker price $33k/year? Add in $10k/year for room and board and their is your $150k total price tag.
Who pays sticker? Certainly nobody hurting for money does.
My daughter went to Lawrence, a pricey private college in Appleton. Graduated in 2009, so not all that long ago. Sticker price was shocking. And yet even though my wife and I made what I consider a pretty decent combined salary, she qualified for quite a bit of grant money. Paid less than half of that $150K you keep quoting, including room and board. And Lawrence was more expensive than MU then and still is today ... if one pays sticker. Which only the richy rich do.
This is so typical of you Smuggles. Go for the most extreme, extreme example, regardless of how unrealistic the extreme is.
Again, my wife got a great nursing job after 2 years at Truman College. Cost 1/50th of $150K. It was "worth it." It was her choice. Every student (and parent) has one.
-
Who pays sticker? Certainly nobody hurting for money does.
My daughter went to Lawrence, a pricey private college in Appleton. Graduated in 2009, so not all that long ago. Sticker price was shocking. And yet even though my wife and I made what I consider a pretty decent combined salary, she qualified for quite a bit of grant money. Paid less than half of that $150K you keep quoting, including room and board. And Lawrence was more expensive than MU then and still is today ... if one pays sticker. Which only the richy rich do.
This is so typical of you Smuggles. Go for the most extreme, extreme example, regardless of how unrealistic the extreme is.
Again, my wife got a great nursing job after 2 years at Truman College. Cost 1/50th of $150K. It was "worth it." It was her choice. Every student (and parent) has one.
I guess you missed this post that makes everything here wrong
(I'm thinking of changing my handle to Smuggles)
Actually I underestimated MU's costs ...
2016–17 undergraduate tuition and costs
Cost of Attendance $53,218
Tuition and Fees $38,470
Room and Board $11,440
Books and Supplies $1,008
Other Expenses $2,300
71% of the undergraduates get financial aid so 29% pay the sticker price ($212k for four years), not less than 10%.
The 79% getting financial aid get an average of $25,701/year in aid meaning that still pay $27,517/yr in costs ($53,218 - $25,701). This is $110,168 for 4 years. (higher if costs go up)
The average amount of debt for a 2015 graduate was $37,048 (meaning that half had more). So that means Mom and Dad forked over $70k to $125k over four years to leave Junior with an average of $37k in debt
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1768
-
Actually I underestimated MU's costs ...
2016–17 undergraduate tuition and costs
Cost of Attendance $53,218
Tuition and Fees $38,470
Room and Board $11,440
Books and Supplies $1,008
Other Expenses $2,300
71% of the undergraduates get financial aid so 29% pay the sticker price ($212k for four years), not less than 10%.
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1768
Look at your numbers again.
All Undergraduates
Financial Aid Applicants 5,707 (71.8%) of undergraduates
Found to Have Financial Need 4,519 (56.8%) of applicants
Received Financial Aid 4,510 (99.8%) of applicants with financial need
Need Fully Met 1,171 (26.0%) of aid recipients
Average Percent of Need Met 78%
Average Award $25,701
Need-Based Gift
Received by 4,423 (98.1%) of aid recipients, average amount $18,681
Need-Based Self-Help
Received by 3,681 (81.6%) of aid recipients, average amount $6,775
Merit-Based Gift
Received by 526 (11.7%) of aid recipients
Merit-Based Gift 3,172 (39.9%) of undergraduates had no financial need and received merit aid, average amount $10,772
According to this site, MU has aproximately 7,950 undergraduates.
4,423 of them receive need based aid (55.6%).
3,172 of them receive no needs based aid but do receive merit based aid. (39.9%)
That's 7,595 students paying less than the stick price. Or 95.5% of undergraduates.
That is less than 10%.
I'm not the best with numbers but I'm pretty sure this is correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Look at your numbers again.
According to this site, MU has aproximately 7,950 undergraduates.
4,423 of them receive need based aid (55.6%).
3,172 of them receive no needs based aid but do receive merit based aid. (39.9%)
That's 7,595 students paying less than the stick price. Or 95.5% of undergraduates.
That is less than 10%.
I'm not the best with numbers but I'm pretty sure this is correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Good catch. Your interpretation and numbers are correct.
-
One other thing; Cost of living is constant whether you go to college or not. You wind up paying a relatively small percentage more to defer paying that cost of living up front if you take out loans for it (once again, a part time job, around 15 hours a week, will go a long way to offset that). You can't just say that is part of the cost of going to college without taking into account the fact that you would still be paying to live either way.
-
Look at your numbers again.
According to this site, MU has aproximately 7,950 undergraduates.
4,423 of them receive need based aid (55.6%).
3,172 of them receive no needs based aid but do receive merit based aid. (39.9%)
That's 7,595 students paying less than the stick price. Or 95.5% of undergraduates.
That is less than 10%.
I'm not the best with numbers but I'm pretty sure this is correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Those are not mutually exclusive, a student can receive aid both based on need and merit.
71% of students get aid, 29% don't.
-
Those are not mutually exclusive, a student can receive aid both based on need and merit.
71% of students get aid, 29% don't.
My goodness... you and numbers sometimes... smh
-
My goodness... you and numbers sometimes... smh
Words, too.
-
My goodness... you and numbers sometimes... smh
Copy and pasted from the website directly. First stat below...
All Undergraduates
Financial Aid Applicants 5,707 (71.8%) of undergraduates
Found to Have Financial Need 4,519 (56.8%) of applicants
Received Financial Aid 4,510 (99.8%) of applicants with financial need
Need Fully Met 1,171 (26.0%) of aid recipients
Average Percent of Need Met 78%
Average Award $25,701
Need-Based Gift
Received by 4,423 (98.1%) of aid recipients, average amount $18,681
Need-Based Self-Help
Received by 3,681 (81.6%) of aid recipients, average amount $6,775
Merit-Based Gift
Received by 526 (11.7%) of aid recipients
Merit-Based Gift 3,172 (39.9%) of undergraduates had no financial need and received merit aid, average amount $10,772
-
Copy and pasted from the website directly. First stat below...
All Undergraduates
Financial Aid Applicants 5,707 (71.8%) of undergraduates
Found to Have Financial Need 4,519 (56.8%) of applicants
Received Financial Aid 4,510 (99.8%) of applicants with financial need
Need Fully Met 1,171 (26.0%) of aid recipients
Average Percent of Need Met 78%
Average Award $25,701
Need-Based Gift
Received by 4,423 (98.1%) of aid recipients, average amount $18,681
Need-Based Self-Help
Received by 3,681 (81.6%) of aid recipients, average amount $6,775
Merit-Based Gift
Received by 526 (11.7%) of aid recipients
Merit-Based Gift 3,172 (39.9%) of undergraduates had no financial need and received merit aid, average amount $10,772
Yes, lets walk you through what TAMU already said. There are 7950 undergraduates according to your site. So percentages will reference this.
4519 students were found to have financial need. 4510 of them received financial aid.
That leave 3431 students that had no financial need.
The last line specifies that 3172 student WHO HAD NO FINANCIAL NEED received merit aid.
That means 3172 of the students with no need received merit aid. That leaves only 259 students out of the total 7950 who received neither need-based or merit-based aid.
So or 3.3% of the students pay full freight. This is consistent with what I would have expected. I would guess that about 95% of those students are foreign nationals. When you had previously listed the 29%, I had thought that was very high, but didn't read close enough...
TAMU gets the reading comprehension gold star.
-
I guess you missed this post that makes everything here wrong
(I'm thinking of changing my handle to Smuggles)
I guess I did. You kept bringing up the sticker price and how that seemed to prove college isn't "worth it."
Regardless of your handle, you'll always be Smuggles to me, big boy.
-
Let's try it this way ...
Here is MU's latest Annual Report filed on September 9, 2016
http://www.marquette.edu/financeoffice/documents/MUFY16Audit.pdf
Page 3
Operating Revenues
2016
- Student Tuition and Fees Gross $371.831 Million
Less: Tuition Discounts $125.839 Million
Net Tuition $245.992 Million
And what are those student discounts? They are explained in footnote 16 on page 31
2016
Institutional Revenue Source $105.161 Million
Gifts, Grants and Endowments $20.678 Million
Total Tuition Discount $125.839 Million
So what does this mean in English ....
MU "Sticker Price" is about $38,500.
Total number of MU students is 9,500 (8k Undergraduates and 1500 grad students) times $38,500 = $365.750 Million. Close enough to the $371.831 million in the annual report (above)
MU has the ability to lower this number by $20.678 million through gifts grants and endowments. It gets another $105.161 million from "institutional revenue sources" for a total of $125.839 million that MU can lower the sticker price.
That means of the 9,500 students at MU, Mom/Dad or the student are forking over $245.992 million in tuition to MU. Again this is tuition and fees only, not room-and-board. (some of this is loans but it is still paid to MU)
Divide this out among 9500 students and that works out to $25,900 per student per year paid by that family to attend MU. In my post below the estimate was $25,700 a year differing by only $200 per student.
Attending MU, like any other school in this country is far more expensive than you think. 98% of the students are not getting a break on tuition.
You want it to be this way. You know that college tuition is way too expensive and it either prices out poor kids (that could go to MU but go to community college and then UW-Parkside because that is what they can afford) so to make yourself feel better you have to convince yourself that "no one pays the sticker price." Well 29% do, because college is what the rich do, and the average to get in the door at MU is $25k to $26k/year. And most parents have more than one kid and often they are all going to college around the same time. So multiple this by 2 or 3 for the total hit to family finances.
That is why MU is gridlock with expensive German cars when the students move in around late August. Poor go to Parkside, rich go to MU.
(this is not unique to MU, they are just our example for all schools).
-
Here is a breakdown of tuition for Jesuit Universiities in the United States.
28 in total, MU ranks #19
http://www.marquette.edu/financeoffice/documents/2015-16AJCUTuitionandFees-10Years.pdf
The most expensive are Boston College and Georgetown at $49k/year (sticker)
So on move-in day MU is full of expensive German cars. On move-in day in Boston and DC the airports are jammed with private planes bringing those kids to college.
-
Did you seriously just go through mental gymnastics to show that on average every student gets a $13k discount on tuition, then claim it proves you right that 29% are paying full freight?
Wrong. Your own previous post shows that 97% are getting a discount.
#alternativefacts not accepted here.
-
Heisy. I don't disagree with your premise that college is too expensive and changes should be made. But you hurt your own cause when you can't just say "oops, I misread that site. I guess 95% don't pay the sticker price. But even so, college is still too expensive."
-
Copy and pasted from the website directly. First stat below...
All Undergraduates
Financial Aid Applicants 5,707 (71.8%) of undergraduates
Found to Have Financial Need 4,519 (56.8%) of applicants
Received Financial Aid 4,510 (99.8%) of applicants with financial need
Need Fully Met 1,171 (26.0%) of aid recipients
Average Percent of Need Met 78%
Average Award $25,701
Need-Based Gift
Received by 4,423 (98.1%) of aid recipients, average amount $18,681
Need-Based Self-Help
Received by 3,681 (81.6%) of aid recipients, average amount $6,775
Merit-Based Gift
Received by 526 (11.7%) of aid recipients
Merit-Based Gift 3,172 (39.9%) of undergraduates had no financial need and received merit aid, average amount $10,772
You do know that financial aid applicants does not equal % of students that don't pay the sticker price correct? Hell, it doesn't even mean students that receive financial aid.
-
Heisy, I think this is a good debate people should be having. But it seems like you post questions and then don't accept peoples' answers as valid unless they confirm the answer you think it should be. So why ask the question at all?
-
Wow Heisy-
I'll have to let my dad know he is rich since I went to Marquette. I never knew a Buick Century was an expensive German car. Learn something new everyday on Scoop!
-
Heisy, I think this is a good debate people should be having. But it seems like you post questions and then don't accept peoples' answers as valid unless they confirm the answer you think it should be. So why ask the question at all?
You haven't paid much attention to Heisy over the years, have you?
-
Heisy. I don't disagree with your premise that college is too expensive and changes should be made. But you hurt your own cause when you can't just say "oops, I misread that site. I guess 95% don't pay the sticker price. But even so, college is still too expensive."
Ok I misread the site and almost no one pays sticker. (Note they count low interest loans as financial aid. In the strictest sense it is but your still paying sticker, or close to it. Just over a longer period of time.)
But, as this notes, MU is hardly cheap.
http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/marquette-university/paying-for-college/net-price/
Net Price at Marquette University for College Costs
The actual sticker price a student pays for tuition, fees, room and board for Marquette often varies widely, based on the students' income levels and the amount of financial assistance they might receive. Take a look at the net price calculations for Marquette below.
Average Net Price of $37,657 For All Undergrads
To send three kids to Marquette would cost nearly half a million dollars. That seems like an outrageous sum to pay.
-
Ok I misread the site and almost no one pays sticker. (Note they count low interest loans as financial aid. In the strictest sense it is but your still paying sticker, or close to it. Just over a longer period of time.)
But, as this notes, MU is hardly cheap.
http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/marquette-university/paying-for-college/net-price/
Net Price at Marquette University for College Costs
The actual sticker price a student pays for tuition, fees, room and board for Marquette often varies widely, based on the students' income levels and the amount of financial assistance they might receive. Take a look at the net price calculations for Marquette below.
Average Net Price of $37,657 For All Undergrads
To send three kids to Marquette would cost nearly half a million dollars. That seems like an outrageous sum to pay.
Wow, you found a completely eff'd website to quote stuff... didn't cut and paste this part though... "Grant and scholarship aid was given to 100% of freshman students."...
Awful website with bad info that does nothing to counter the attacks on your 71% claim. Shameful
-
Wow, you found a completely eff'd website to quote stuff... didn't cut and paste this part though... "Grant and scholarship aid was given to 100% of freshman students."...
Awful website with bad info that does nothing to counter the attacks on your 71% claim. Shameful
I think I acknowledged the 71% number was wrong. And yes 100% got it and it lowered the cost from $53k to $37.6k. You think #7.5k is reasonable?
-
Don't think this has posted yet, but great read about how cheaper in-state colleges do much better (by volume), of getting poor kids into the middle class.
"CUNY turned 6X as many poor kids middle class as 8 Ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford & UofC combined."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/opinion/sunday/americas-great-working-class-colleges.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
A kid going to CUNY costs about $7K if they choose to live @ home. I think Yukon has a point, that not ALL colleges are worth it. For most from low-income backgrounds, MU is a terrible choice (sorry MU). But a poor kid from upstate WI or urban MKE, armed with a Pell Grant can 2 years free @ community college, and with the right GPA can then transfer to a UW school, again get over half of their college costs paid for with need-based GRANT aid. In this scenario, a student would graduate with less $20K in federal, low interest loans.
We can then make the argument, is this degree the student earns, a bachelors in whatever from a UW school (Whitewater, Madison, MKE, Riverside, GB...) "worth" $215 a month, for 10 years ($20K in standard repayment). In today's economy, I would say 100% yes.
Now, if this same student, went to MU or Ripon or St. Norberts...graduated with $50K or $60K worth of debt, parents took out loans, maxed credit cards, for that Art & Philosophy major, I would probably say, they were better off not going to school.
These are not black and white issues, but great discussion.
Note, I have worked in college financial financing for the past 12 years, but what do I know, I only have a bachelors in Poly Sci from MU :P
-
Don't think this has posted yet, but great read about how cheaper in-state colleges do much better (by volume), of getting poor kids into the middle class.
"CUNY turned 6X as many poor kids middle class as 8 Ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford & UofC combined."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/opinion/sunday/americas-great-working-class-colleges.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
A kid going to CUNY costs about $7K if they choose to live @ home. I think Yukon has a point, that not ALL colleges are worth it. For most from low-income backgrounds, MU is a terrible choice (sorry MU). But a poor kid from upstate WI or urban MKE, armed with a Pell Grant can 2 years free @ community college, and with the right GPA can then transfer to a UW school, again get over half of their college costs paid for with need-based GRANT aid. In this scenario, a student would graduate with less $20K in federal, low interest loans.
We can then make the argument, is this degree the student earns, a bachelors in whatever from a UW school (Whitewater, Madison, MKE, Riverside, GB...) "worth" $215 a month, for 10 years ($20K in standard repayment). In today's economy, I would say 100% yes.
Now, if this same student, went to MU or Ripon or St. Norberts...graduated with $50K or $60K worth of debt, parents took out loans, maxed credit cards, for that Art & Philosophy major, I would probably say, they were better off not going to school.
These are not black and white issues, but great discussion.
Note, I have worked in college financial financing for the past 12 years, but what do I know, I only have a bachelors in Poly Sci from MU :P
To be fair, most of the schools you compare to CUNY do not confer undergraduate degrees in things like business, nursing, or education, which CUNY does. Those degrees are the straightest route to the middle class for most folks. CUNY also has several times the undergraduate enrollment that those combined universities do.
You really aren't comparing apples to apples.
-
To be fair, most of the schools you compare to CUNY do not confer undergraduate degrees in things like business, nursing, or education, which CUNY does. Those degrees are the straightest route to the middle class for most folks. CUNY also has several times the undergraduate enrollment that those combined universities do.
You really aren't comparing apples to apples.
I didn't write the article, take that up with David Leonhardt. But point well taken...
Say we omit the whole comparison to Ivies and the elites, fine. The fact still remains that lower cost, in-state public institutions still provide real pathways of poor kids into the middle class.
-
I didn't write the article, take that up with David Leonhardt. But point well taken...
Say we omit the whole comparison to Ivies and the elites, fine. The fact still remains that lower cost, in-state public institutions still provide real pathways of poor kids into the middle class.
No argument there.
-
Don't think this has posted yet, but great read about how cheaper in-state colleges do much better (by volume), of getting poor kids into the middle class.
"CUNY turned 6X as many poor kids middle class as 8 Ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford & UofC combined."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/opinion/sunday/americas-great-working-class-colleges.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
A kid going to CUNY costs about $7K if they choose to live @ home. I think Yukon has a point, that not ALL colleges are worth it. For most from low-income backgrounds, MU is a terrible choice (sorry MU). But a poor kid from upstate WI or urban MKE, armed with a Pell Grant can 2 years free @ community college, and with the right GPA can then transfer to a UW school, again get over half of their college costs paid for with need-based GRANT aid. In this scenario, a student would graduate with less $20K in federal, low interest loans.
We can then make the argument, is this degree the student earns, a bachelors in whatever from a UW school (Whitewater, Madison, MKE, Riverside, GB...) "worth" $215 a month, for 10 years ($20K in standard repayment). In today's economy, I would say 100% yes.
Now, if this same student, went to MU or Ripon or St. Norberts...graduated with $50K or $60K worth of debt, parents took out loans, maxed credit cards, for that Art & Philosophy major, I would probably say, they were better off not going to school.
These are not black and white issues, but great discussion.
Note, I have worked in college financial financing for the past 12 years, but what do I know, I only have a bachelors in Poly Sci from MU :P
CUNY has a total enrollment of 516,000. The 8 ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford and UofC is 115k. So CUNY has 4.5 times the enrollment.
Given that CUNY also has a far higher "poor" enrollment, the ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford, and UofC are more successful in raising people from poverty.
-
CUNY has a total enrollment of 516,000. The 8 ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford and UofC is 115k. So CUNY has 4.5 times the enrollment.
Given that CUNY also has a far higher "poor" enrollment, the ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford, and UofC are more successful in raising people from poverty.
33% of CUNY students receive Pell grants, while look at the ranking for the Ivies and the elites it varies between 15% and 25%, is that far higher?
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools
http://www2.cuny.edu/financial-aid/federal-and-state-grants/
And again, even taking that point, thoughts on the other 95% of my post?
-
33% of CUNY students receive Pell grants, while look at the ranking for the Ivies and the elites it varies between 15% and 25%, is that far higher?
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools
http://www2.cuny.edu/financial-aid/federal-and-state-grants/
And again, even taking that point, thoughts on the other 95% of my post?
Didn't think it would be that close. Thanks for the info. Still the difference combined with the 4.5x larger enrollment would make it predictable that they should exceed that group by 6x.
What that tells me is that the key to move out of being "poor" is to get a college education. Where, likely doesn't matter much as long as it is quality. CUNY is a top notch education system. Its cost is heavily subsidized by tax payers.
You emphasize community colleges. Outside of Wisconsin (and maybe 5 other states), community colleges are terrible. My university doesn't even accept transfer credits in core classes from them, because when we used to the students would fail all the upper level classes. The courses were just useless.
The key, go to a quality college. Consider your major and earning potential before choosing a University. Wherever you go, be one of the best. Get a graduate/professional degree...profit.
What I'd be interested in seeing is who does better at taking "poor" people and making them part of the 1%. My guess is that the IVY+ dominates that ranking.
-
I didn't write the article, take that up with David Leonhardt. But point well taken...
Say we omit the whole comparison to Ivies and the elites, fine. The fact still remains that lower cost, in-state public institutions still provide real pathways of poor kids into the middle class.
Yep. But that doesn't make good screamin' headlines.
NOBODY CAN AFFORD COLLEGE! is much more effective.
-
Didn't think it would be that close. Thanks for the info. Still the difference combined with the 4.5x larger enrollment would make it predictable that they should exceed that group by 6x.
What that tells me is that the key to move out of being "poor" is to get a college education. Where, likely doesn't matter much as long as it is quality. CUNY is a top notch education system. Its cost is heavily subsidized by tax payers.
You emphasize community colleges. Outside of Wisconsin (and maybe 5 other states), community colleges are terrible. My university doesn't even accept transfer credits in core classes from them, because when we used to the students would fail all the upper level classes. The courses were just useless.
The key, go to a quality college. Consider your major and earning potential before choosing a University. Wherever you go, be one of the best. Get a graduate/professional degree...profit.
What I'd be interested in seeing is who does better at taking "poor" people and making them part of the 1%. My guess is that the IVY+ dominates that ranking.
My point was that the community college route can be an effective/affordable route for low-income young people, when faced with an alternative of a middle of the road private 4 year institution saddled with $10K per year in debt.
If that same student has the academic credentials to immediately go to a 4 year affordable school, 99/100 that is the better choice because you are right, the data shows they have a much better shot at graduating.
The silver bullet is NOT sending all poor kids to CC, and I hope I was not implying that, because all that is doing is create a haves and have not system. Plus, most CC systems are even less funded than their 4 year counterparts, they face many challenges.
When I work with low income young people in trying to figure out how they will afford college, I have to take a risk-based approach. This will be one of the biggest financial decisions they will ever make in their life, and it's emotional for all involved. They have to know the serious implications of taking on a huge amount of debt their first year of college. Young people who have debt and no degree is a growing at an incredible pace, and they are the most @ risk to default, and the impacts it has on their credit, future borrowing, access to future Pell grants (those in federal default cannot get grant aid)...
As for your last question, do you really think anyone can actually get into the 1%? The 1% is locked in from birth.
-
My point was that the community college route can be an effective/affordable route for low-income young people, when faced with an alternative of a middle of the road private 4 year institution saddled with $10K per year in debt.
If that same student has the academic credentials to immediately go to a 4 year affordable school, 99/100 that is the better choice because you are right, the data shows they have a much better shot at graduating.
The silver bullet is NOT sending all poor kids to CC, and I hope I was not implying that, because all that is doing is create a haves and have not system. Plus, most CC systems are even less funded than their 4 year counterparts, they face many challenges.
When I work with low income young people in trying to figure out how they will afford college, I have to take a risk-based approach. This will be one of the biggest financial decisions they will ever make in their life, and it's emotional for all involved. They have to know the serious implications of taking on a huge amount of debt their first year of college. Young people who have debt and no degree is a growing at an incredible pace, and they are the most @ risk to default, and the impacts it has on their credit, future borrowing, access to future Pell grants (those in federal default cannot get grant aid)...
As for your last question, do you really think anyone can actually get into the 1%? The 1% is locked in from birth.
I agree with just about all of this, which isn't unusual since you and I agree on most things. That last point, though ... I don't think "anyone" can get into the 1%, but I do think people do ascend from middle class (or even lower) to the 1%. The odds are long, but there are regularly stories about those who overcome them through hard work, luck, incredible ability (athletes, performers) or some combination.
-
I agree with just about all of this, which isn't unusual since you and I agree on most things. That last point, though ... I don't think "anyone" can get into the 1%, but I do think people do ascend from middle class (or even lower) to the 1%. The odds are long, but there are regularly stories about those who overcome them through hard work, luck, incredible ability (athletes, performers) or some combination.
Point taken and agreed with, and you are correct, a hyperbole on my part. As it stands, an annual income in the ballpark of $450K a year puts you in the 1%.
US Median income is $55K, so while rare and very difficult to do in one generation, would most likely take multiple generations to get there.
-
My point was that the community college route can be an effective/affordable route for low-income young people, when faced with an alternative of a middle of the road private 4 year institution saddled with $10K per year in debt.
If that same student has the academic credentials to immediately go to a 4 year affordable school, 99/100 that is the better choice because you are right, the data shows they have a much better shot at graduating.
The silver bullet is NOT sending all poor kids to CC, and I hope I was not implying that, because all that is doing is create a haves and have not system. Plus, most CC systems are even less funded than their 4 year counterparts, they face many challenges.
When I work with low income young people in trying to figure out how they will afford college, I have to take a risk-based approach. This will be one of the biggest financial decisions they will ever make in their life, and it's emotional for all involved. They have to know the serious implications of taking on a huge amount of debt their first year of college. Young people who have debt and no degree is a growing at an incredible pace, and they are the most @ risk to default, and the impacts it has on their credit, future borrowing, access to future Pell grants (those in federal default cannot get grant aid)...
As for your last question, do you really think anyone can actually get into the 1%? The 1% is locked in from birth.
Agree with all of this. The last comment, I agree with MU82, certainly extremely challenging to get to the 1%, but not impossible. Both my wife and I came from low middle class backgrounds, which grew to middle class as we grew up.
We are not in the 1% yes, but each year we get a little closer. If it wasn't for major health issues, we probably would have made it there a few years ago (hoping for no more major health set backs). So it is definitely, possible...although the major health issues were likely related to being overworked, and over-stressed...which those born into the top 1% do not have to worry about.
-
Agree with all of this. The last comment, I agree with MU82, certainly extremely challenging to get to the 1%, but not impossible. Both my wife and I came from low middle class backgrounds, which grew to middle class as we grew up.
We are not in the 1% yes, but each year we get a little closer. If it wasn't for major health issues, we probably would have made it there a few years ago (hoping for no more major health set backs). So it is definitely, possible...although the major health issues were likely related to being overworked, and over-stressed...which those born into the top 1% do not have to worry about.
+1
wait...did we just come to a consensus through critical thinking, reflection, owning up to hyperbole, and using real, not alternative facts???
wow, just in awe ;D
-
+1
wait...did we just come to a consensus through critical thinking, reflection, owning up to hyperbole, and using real, not alternative facts???
wow, just in awe ;D
Wait? Is this Scoop?
As for the 1%, I always thought it was a total-net-worth thing and not an annual-salary thing. I just did a little googling (and you know how fun that can be) and found that both measures are fairly widely used.
I never will get within a zillion light years of the $400K annual salary to be a 1-percenter by that measure, but the net-worth threshold is much more attainable - slightly less than $1 million, according to Fortune magazine. That is a worldwide figure. In the U.S., one needs a net worth of more than $8 million to be in the 1%. I won't get there, either! Top 5% is a shade under $2M net worth; that's as good a goal as any for a middle-class bum like myself.
-
There are many paths to wealth, my personal opinion is we over-emphasis a 4 year college degree as the route to wealth.
Of the people that I know who are upper middle class (don't know anyone in the 1% that I'm aware of) at least 50% of them didn't get a degree past high school, went to trade school/apprenticed, or went to community college.
It's anecdotal, of course, but I think it's illustrative of a "lost" path because of the focus on college. My son's godfather went into steamfitting after high school, worked his way up and made good money along the way, eventually gained enough experience and knowledge that he started his own company. Eventually, though wildly successful, for medical reasons he decided to sell the business, get a 4 year degree part time as a project manager and is now working for a engineering company. He's been making more money than his wife (BS and NP in nursing) as well as both my wife and I (we both have masters) for a number of years now. I might catch up to him at some point for various reasons, but both he and his wife have been living comfortably for a number of years because he took a different route.
I don't know that people realize it, but with the rise in automation while non-college jobs involving manual labor go away there will be a significant increase in non-college jobs that involve technology connectivity. We need to find ways to move people in those directions as well.
I get that it's easy for me to say since I went to a 4 year college but I made that choice for two very practical reasons: to fly for the Navy you have to have one, and I knew my interests lay with technical innovation/designing stuff and an engineering degree was the best way to do that. If my interests lay somewhere else, I might not have bothered with college if it didn't matter.
Bottom line for the thread title, it is if you are doing for a particular reason and not doing it just because you think that's what you are suppose to do.
-
There are many paths to wealth, my personal opinion is we over-emphasis a 4 year college degree as the route to wealth.
Of the people that I know who are upper middle class (don't know anyone in the 1% that I'm aware of) at least 50% of them didn't get a degree past high school, went to trade school/apprenticed, or went to community college.
It's anecdotal, of course, but I think it's illustrative of a "lost" path because of the focus on college. My son's godfather went into steamfitting after high school, worked his way up and made good money along the way, eventually gained enough experience and knowledge that he started his own company. Eventually, though wildly successful, for medical reasons he decided to sell the business, get a 4 year degree part time as a project manager and is now working for a engineering company. He's been making more money than his wife (BS and NP in nursing) as well as both my wife and I (we both have masters) for a number of years now. I might catch up to him at some point for various reasons, but both he and his wife have been living comfortably for a number of years because he took a different route.
I don't know that people realize it, but with the rise in automation while non-college jobs involving manual labor go away there will be a significant increase in non-college jobs that involve technology connectivity. We need to find ways to move people in those directions as well.
I get that it's easy for me to say since I went to a 4 year college but I made that choice for two very practical reasons: to fly for the Navy you have to have one, and I knew my interests lay with technical innovation/designing stuff and an engineering degree was the best way to do that. If my interests lay somewhere else, I might not have bothered with college if it didn't matter.
Bottom line for the thread title, it is if you are doing for a particular reason and not doing it just because you think that's what you are suppose to do.
I know a lot of people in the top 1%. All got at least a 4 year degree (most an advanced degree), all also were already born into the top 1%.
Can it be done, yes, but your changes drop precipitously if you either were not already born into the 1% and/or you do not get at least a 4-year degree.
Also, curious as to what salary you define as upper middle class.
-
When I worked for one large news organization, there were six of us who hung out fairly regularly.
I went to Marquette. One guy went to Brooklyn College. One went to Ball State. One went to Harvard (and later got his master's at Yale). One went to Georgia. One went to to school somewhere in Europe (he lives in Brussels). Six people, all working basically the same job, all making within a few thousand dollars of each other. Six very different schools.
Indeed, lots of paths.
-
I know a lot of people in the top 1%. All got at least a 4 year degree (most an advanced degree), all also were already born into the top 1%.
Can it be done, yes, but your changes drop precipitously if you either were not already born into the 1% and/or you do not get at least a 4-year degree.
Also, curious as to what salary you define as upper middle class.
Not being flippant, but what are the odds that someone is getting into the 1% anyway? A number of factors go into getting into the 1%, college certainly is one of those factors but should we be shoving everyone to college because that gives them a 0.0003% better chance of being in the 1%? The 1% by definition are limited to a small number of people.
As to definition of classes, I'll assume a family of 4 since that's the metric that always seems to be used. I'd say middle class is (depending on where you live) $75k annual income with upper middle class somewhere around $125k or $150k annual income starting for upper middle class. Anything over $250k is pretty darn wealthy.
-
Not being flippant, but what are the odds that someone is getting into the 1% anyway? A number of factors go into getting into the 1%, college certainly is one of those factors but should we be shoving everyone to college because that gives them a 0.0003% better chance of being in the 1%? The 1% by definition are limited to a small number of people.
As to definition of classes, I'll assume a family of 4 since that's the metric that always seems to be used. I'd say middle class is (depending on where you live) $75k annual income with upper middle class somewhere around $125k or $150k annual income starting for upper middle class. Anything over $250k is pretty darn wealthy.
What defines someone in the 1%?
-
Not being flippant, but what are the odds that someone is getting into the 1% anyway? A number of factors go into getting into the 1%, college certainly is one of those factors but should we be shoving everyone to college because that gives them a 0.0003% better chance of being in the 1%? The 1% by definition are limited to a small number of people.
As to definition of classes, I'll assume a family of 4 since that's the metric that always seems to be used. I'd say middle class is (depending on where you live) $75k annual income with upper middle class somewhere around $125k or $150k annual income starting for upper middle class. Anything over $250k is pretty darn wealthy.
That's not the reason to go to college. The reason to go to college is statistically, your chances of being in the middle class/upper middle class/1% all substantially increase...whereas if you do not go to college the statistical likelihood of ending up in the bottom 20%, substantially increases.
You don't go to college hoping to get into the top 1%, you go to ensure you position yourself for the most success possible.
-
Biggest reason to go to college = the broads, ain''a?
-
What defines someone in the 1%?
Really? Salary and/or accumulated wealth that us in the top 1% of earners in US.
Must've slept through the Occupy era
-
That's not the reason to go to college. The reason to go to college is statistically, your chances of being in the middle class/upper middle class/1% all substantially increase...whereas if you do not go to college the statistical likelihood of ending up in the bottom 20%, substantially increases.
You don't go to college hoping to get into the top 1%, you go to ensure you position yourself for the most success possible.
That's predicated on you going into a degree area that has value greater than the debt you're assuming to get the degree
-
Really? Salary and/or accumulated wealth that us in the top 1% of earners in US.
Must've slept through the Occupy era
No, what LEVEL defines one as having moved into the 1%.
You can give me salary, accumulated wealth, or both.
You think this is accurate?
(http://cdn.thefiscaltimes.com/sites/default/files/20160617_EPI_Top_1_Percent_Map.jpg)
-
That's predicated on you going into a degree area that has value greater than the debt you're assuming to get the degree
And that was the point of the opening articles to start this thread. While no one is doubting that going to college raises one's marketability to get a job, does it justify the enormous cost?
Peter Thiel and James Altucher argued no. Take a job out of high school and have your parents shovel $150k over the first four years into your bank account and they believe the average person would be better off.
Hence college is a waste for the average person.
-
And that was the point of the opening articles to start this thread. While no one is doubting that going to college raises one's marketability to get a job, does it justify the enormous cost?
Peter Thiel and James Altucher argued no. Take a job out of high school and have your parents shovel $150k over the first four years into your bank account and they believe the average person would be better off.
Hence college is a waste for the average person.
Again, stop with $150K marker. The average debt for students graduating with their undergrad today is under $30K, and like others have already pointed out, ANY student can graduate, get a bachelor's degree, with under $40K in debt, that's if they qualified for ZERO grants, and financed the entire thing.
Now again, this is about choices. In my example above, the cheapest path to a bachelors degree is 2 years of public community college at let's say $5K per year, then 2 years of commuting at a public in-state 4 year college.
Again, this is not and should not be the path for everyone, but if just looking @ costs, your $150K assumes the most expensive schools, with no financial aid grant money, and a family who zero willingness to pay any portion.
-
Again, stop with $150K marker. The average debt for students graduating with their undergrad today is under $30K, and like others have already pointed out, ANY student can graduate, get a bachelor's degree, with under $40K in debt, that's if they qualified for ZERO grants, and financed the entire thing.
Now again, this is about choices. In my example above, the cheapest path to a bachelors degree is 2 years of public community college at let's say $5K per year, then 2 years of commuting at a public in-state 4 year college.
Again, this is not and should not be the path for everyone, but if just looking @ costs, your $150K assumes the most expensive schools, with no financial aid grant money, and a family who zero willingness to pay any portion.
Debt does not mean that is the total cost. That is the borrowed cost as you're ignoring the tens of Thousands shelled out by a family in addition to the debt.
As noted above, the average all-in cost for MU is $37k/year. MU is actually one of the cheaper Jesuit schools, also noted above.
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10064
In its most recent survey of college pricing, the College Board reports that a "moderate" college budget for an in-state public college for the 2016–2017 academic year averaged $24,610. A moderate budget at a private college averaged $49,320. But what goes into these costs?
The average of the numbers above is $150k, which is why I use it.
Yes, options like community college cost far less. But again, what is the point? Get a job straight out of high school and have your parents give you the $30k to $50k to get your going. How much better off are you because of community college? Pocket the money, get a decent car and apartment and start working at 18.
-
Debt does not mean that is the total cost. That is the borrowed cost as you're ignoring the tens of Thousands shelled out by a family in addition to the debt.
As noted above, the average all-in cost for MU is $37k/year. MU is actually one of the cheaper Jesuit schools, also noted above.
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_payarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleId=10064
In its most recent survey of college pricing, the College Board reports that a "moderate" college budget for an in-state public college for the 2016–2017 academic year averaged $24,610. A moderate budget at a private college averaged $49,320. But what goes into these costs?
The average of the numbers above is $150k, which is why I use it.
Yes, options like community college cost far less. But again, what is the point? Get a job straight out of high school and have your parents give you the $30k to $50k to get your going. How much better off are you because of community college? Pocket the money, get a decent car and apartment and start working at 18.
We are talking about two different groups of folks. I am primarily talking low income, first generation young people, who if they can get a college degree, it's proven they can break the line of poverty in their family.
You are talking rich kids, whose parents can just gift them $30K a year for 4 years.
I ain't worried about the ones you are talking about.
-
We are talking about two different groups of folks. I am primarily talking low income, first generation young people, who if they can get a college degree, it's proven they can break the line of poverty in their family.
You are talking rich kids, whose parents can just gift them $30K a year for 4 years.
I ain't worried about the ones you are talking about.
A poor kid that goes to a community college for two years $10k ($5k/year assume lives at home). Then two-years at a state school, $15/k year for $30k. Add community college and all-in cost is $40k.
They graduate after spending $40k. Let's assume that they are not top of their class but instead are average.
How much better off are they instead of starting working at 18 and getting $40k for their bank account.
Thiel and Altucher argue they are not and should go straight into the workforce.
Let's be blunt, the kid I described above is probably not getting a STEM degree so what is their increase in earnings potential to justify the four year later start in starting work and spending $40k for that education?
-
A poor kid that goes to a community college for two years $10k ($5k/year assume lives at home). Then two-years at a state school, $15/k year for $40k
They graduate after spending $40k. Let's assume that they are not top of their class rather than average.
How much better off are they instead of starting working at 18 and getting $40k for their bank account.
Thiel and Altucher argue they are not and should go straight into the workforce.
Let's be blunt, the kid I described above is probably not getting a STEM degree so what is their increase in earnings potential to justify the four year later start in starting work and spending $40k for that education?
A poor kid (parents make under $30K a year) will receive a max Pell grant ($5900 a year), thus bringing down that $40K, to $16K worth of debt, again, assuming no other aid.
That's about $175 a month repaymemt, for ten years.
Now, another kid who gets a job that pays slightly more than minimum wage, say $10 a hour, 40 hours week. This kid is grossing $21K, and will take home maybe $17K a year x 4 years, and say, they earn an extra grand a year, bringing the 4 year take home pay, to about 75K. Now, of course, they will not save every penny, but best case scenario, they save $50K.
Who is better off, the kid with $50K in the bank, and a high school diploma, or the kid with your average bachelor's degree, from X State College, with 16K in debt.
I think it's a no brainer, the kid with the college degree who has double the earning potential versus the HS grad, who still living rent free at their parents house and making $11 bucks an hour.
-
A poor kid (parents make under $30K a year) will receive a max Pell grant ($5900 a year), thus bringing down that $40K, to $16K worth of debt, again, assuming no other aid.
That's about $175 a month repaymemt, for ten years.
Now, another kid who gets a job that pays slightly more than minimum wage, say $10 a hour, 40 hours week. This kid is grossing $21K, and will take home maybe $17K a year x 4 years, and say, they earn an extra grand a year, bringing the 4 year take home pay, to about 75K. Now, of course, they will not save every penny, but best case scenario, they save $50K.
Who is better off, the kid with $50K in the bank, and a high school diploma, or the kid with your average bachelor's degree, from X State College, with 16K in debt.
I think it's a no brainer, the kid with the college degree who has double the earning potential versus the HS grad, who still living rent free at their parents house and making $11 bucks an hour.
If you are using an apples-to-apples comparison ... the kid that starts at minimum wage at 18, and could have graduated from a state school, is a shift supervisor 4 years later and has already doubled his salary. Now he is even with the kid that graduates from college in the example above.
Given this, I think it is a wash or even favors the kid that starts at 18 and has the extra bucks in his bank account.
-
If you are using an apples-to-apples comparison ... the kid that starts at minimum wage at 18, and could have graduated from a state school, is a shift supervisor 4 years later and has already doubled his salary. Now he is even with the kid that graduates from college in the example above.
Given this, I think it is a wash or even favors the kid that starts at 18 and has the extra bucks in his bank account.
A shift supervisor @ run of the mill fast food, car wash, oil change, retail store make around $11 an hour. Now, a GM of one of these places is in the mid to upper 40s, but oops, most places that are GMs are asking for a college degree.
-
A shift supervisor @ run of the mill fast food, car wash, oil change, retail store make around $11 an hour. Now, a GM of one of these places is in the mid to upper 40s, but oops, most places that are GMs are asking for a college degree.
Seems like experience is valued over a degree, so get a four year jump with money in your pocket.
http://www.snagajob.com/job-descriptions/store-manager/
HOW MUCH DO STORE MANAGERS MAKE?
This depends a lot on what kind of field you are in and what sort of company you are hired to manage. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, restaurant and food service managers make a median income of $48,130, or $23.14 per hour. Pay will vary depending on occupation and years of service, among other factors.
WHAT ARE THE EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS?
Again, this varies greatly depending on the field of work, but on-the-job experience in the line of work is a must. There are many general management courses that you can take, and even specialized secondary education majors, that might shorten the time it takes to reach management level in your field. But most managers have spent years as general employees in their respective fields before reaching a leadership level.
-
Here is my thought ...
STEM degrees are always worth it. Get one of those no matter the price and place.
Any degree from a top University is worth it, defined as top 100 (out of 4500) universities in the country (MU is top 100). Get one of those. Bottom 50 on this list might be a bit expensive but still worth it.
Above is, what, 20 to 30% of all college degrees. The other 70% TO 80% is iffy ... unless the price is drastically cut.
Restated, in WI only Madison and MU are top 100. If you go to another WI university are are not getting a STEM degree, have to be getting a MAJOR break on tuition or it is questionable if it is helping your employment prospects versus what you are paying (and delaying your career start by 4 years).
Have at this idea.
-
Here is my thought ...
STEM degrees are always worth it. Get one of those no matter the price and place.
Any degree from a top University is worth it, defined as top 100 (out of 4500) universities in the country (MU is top 100). Get one of those. Bottom 50 on this list might be a bit expensive but still worth it.
Above is, what, 20 to 30% of all college degrees. The other 70% TO 80% is iffy ... unless the price is drastically cut.
Restated, in WI only Madison and MU are top 100. If you go to another WI university are are not getting a STEM degree, have to be getting a MAJOR break on tuition or it is questionable if it is helping your employment prospects versus what you are paying (and delaying your career start by 4 years).
Have at this idea.
Good back and forth, appreciate the thoughts.
I stated earlier the thread, that college is NOT right for everyone, and that huge debt (and again been in college financing for 12 years), I define as over $40K at graduation, is a huge tipping point if whether or not a student should go.
I agree, exceptions for top schools, and STEM careers. If a middle income kid graduated from MU, with A&S major, and over $40 or $50K with a debt, I think that is most likely not a great choice.
Now, I we have been only talking "worth", as $, which I know you will argue, it's all that matters.
But college graduates are healthier, dramatically less likely to be on government benefits or incarcerated, more likely to vote, more likely to be married and have kids...
So while salary and opportunity cost are two factors, I would argue the ones listed above are also based in economics.
-
Here is my thought ...
STEM degrees are always worth it. Get one of those no matter the price and place.
Any degree from a top University is worth it, defined as top 100 (out of 4500) universities in the country (MU is top 100). Get one of those. Bottom 50 on this list might be a bit expensive but still worth it.
Above is, what, 20 to 30% of all college degrees. The other 70% TO 80% is iffy ... unless the price is drastically cut.
Restated, in WI only Madison and MU are top 100. If you go to another WI university are are not getting a STEM degree, have to be getting a MAJOR break on tuition or it is questionable if it is helping your employment prospects versus what you are paying (and delaying your career start by 4 years).
Have at this idea.
That's false. Graduates from public comprehensive universities, even in non-business degrees, earn more than they would without the degree.
-
In my past experience 'some college' was a weed out by HR to get an interview for a factory job...most who actually got hired had an associates degree or a bachelors. The degree spoke not to what was learned from a discipline perspective but to a level of capability.
I'm not saying everyone needs college or the specific classes along the way to get a degree, but the journey still stands for something.
-
In my past experience 'some college' was a weed out by HR to get an interview for a factory job...most who actually got hired had an associates degree or a bachelors. The degree spoke not to what was learned from a discipline perspective but to a level of capability.
I'm not saying everyone needs college or the specific classes along the way to get a degree, but the journey still stands for something.
The journey is worth something ... that something is the price of tuition.
-
The journey is worth something ... that something is the price of tuition.
plus a 30-40 year career in a mfg facility with benefits which none of those ladies or gentleman are eligible for without what I said previously. The price of being in the middle class has risen - right or wrong.
-
Again it is not about the absoutel idea of going to college from 18 to 22. It is about the relative question of the cost.
Is college worth the cost? Many recent graduates don’t think so.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/09/30/is-college-worth-the-cost-many-recent-graduates-dont-think-so/?utm_term=.d664742c0cd0
If the results of a national survey released on Tuesday are any indication, many of them will question their investment. Just 38 percent of students who have graduated college in the past decade strongly agree that their higher education was worth the cost, according to results of 30,000 alumni polled by Gallup-Purdue Index.
http://www.gallup.com/reports/197144/gallup-purdue-index-report-2015.aspx
-
Again it is not about the absoutel idea of going to college from 18 to 22. It is about the relative question of the cost.
Is college worth the cost? Many recent graduates don’t think so.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/09/30/is-college-worth-the-cost-many-recent-graduates-dont-think-so/?utm_term=.d664742c0cd0
If the results of a national survey released on Tuesday are any indication, many of them will question their investment. Just 38 percent of students who have graduated college in the past decade strongly agree that their higher education was worth the cost, according to results of 30,000 alumni polled by Gallup-Purdue Index.
http://www.gallup.com/reports/197144/gallup-purdue-index-report-2015.aspx
Dumb people with dumb majors are different than intelligent people who are looking for a career that requires a college education... those are the biggest factors for me.. what are you trying to do? What are you planning to study?
-
Now, I we have been only talking "worth", as $, which I know you will argue, it's all that matters.
But college graduates are healthier, dramatically less likely to be on government benefits or incarcerated, more likely to vote, more likely to be married and have kids...
So while salary and opportunity cost are two factors, I would argue the ones listed above are also based in economics.
Not saying you are but this feels like a chicken or egg thing. Do those people succeed in that way because they went to college or do the type of people that go to college and have the ability to succeed because they are successful people?
-
Not saying you are but this feels like a chicken or egg thing. Do those people succeed in that way because they went to college or do the type of people that go to college and have the ability to succeed because they are successful people?
Totally valid question, like most things, I think it's a bit gray, and somewhere in the middle.
-
Totally valid question, like most things, I think it's a bit gray, and somewhere in the middle.
This is certainly the case with the Ivies. Look at the number of successful people that bailed out of Harvard early without a degree so they could get started ... Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Ken Griffin (Citadel). Collectively these three are worth about $175 billion!
They were destine to be successful no matter what. This is the case with many Ivy students. Ivies don't have exceptional classes, they take exceptional students that are going to "make it" no matter what.
-
Not saying you are but this feels like a chicken or egg thing. Do those people succeed in that way because they went to college or do the type of people that go to college and have the ability to succeed because they are successful people?
Which is why I said above that STEM degrees anywhere and any degree from a top 100 university (which includes MU) is worth it. Problem is this is a small fraction of the kids currently in college.
If you're not one of the two above, you need a substantial discount in tuition to justify the four years.
-
Honestly, I think the most realistic remedy is better education on loans and college finances in high school. My fiance went to LIU Post for her undergrad. Tuition costs roughly the same if not more than a Marquette despite not having nearly the prestige or profile and being near bankruptcy. She went there because her mom went there and as a 17 year old she didn't understand how much debt she was talking on and that there were cheaper options where she would have gotten a better education. She has said that if she knew what she knows now, she would have gone to a SUNY and ended up with maybe 10% of the derby she has now.
College counselors in high school are woefully underprepared and underfunded. I bet we'd see a lot less debt issues if we did the education up front.
LIU Post has a nice campus in a good neighborhood. She probably had fun.
-
Which is why I said above that STEM degrees anywhere and any degree from a top 100 university (which includes MU) is worth it. Problem is this is a small fraction of the kids currently in college.
If you're not one of the two above, you need a substantial discount in tuition to justify the four years.
What would substantial mean? Because as I said before, most non STEM degrees are beneficial even at regional comprehensive universities when compared to no degree.
-
This is certainly the case with the Ivies. Look at the number of successful people that bailed out of Harvard early without a degree so they could get started ... Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Ken Griffin (Citadel). Collectively these three are worth about $175 billion!
They were destine to be successful no matter what. This is the case with many Ivy students. Ivies don't have exceptional classes, they take exceptional students that are going to "make it" no matter what.
You make post after post demonstrating how little you know about this thing called the world. These people (Mark Zuckerberg) especially would be nowhere if it wasn't for the connections and opportunities afforded them by being at an Ivy.
They have both exceptional classes that are matched by exceptional professors and peers, these open up opportunities that are not remotely possible anywhere else.
I have a friend at Harvard right now who is bright, but not exceptional. They had an idea though and happened to get a chance to talk to George Church, he liked the idea and is going to set up a meeting for them with Elon Musk...that never happens if you are not at Harvard.
Their idea goes nowhere if they are somewhere else, now even if the idea doesn't move forward they are tied to two of the most influential people on the planet who will likely jumpstart their career.
-
You make post after post demonstrating how little you know about this thing called the world. These people (Mark Zuckerberg) especially would be nowhere if it wasn't for the connections and opportunities afforded them by being at an Ivy.
Ken Griffin also graduated from Harvard, so yea....
-
You make post after post demonstrating how little you know about this thing called the world. These people (Mark Zuckerberg) especially would be nowhere if it wasn't for the connections and opportunities afforded them by being at an Ivy.
Typical left-wing thinking that no one that is uber-successful has extraordinary skills or talent. No Zuckerberg was just another smuck that got lucky meeting some people at Harvard that launched him into the mega-success that he is.
Restated, if Zuckerberg went to Amherst or another such school (MU?), he would just be an unknown programmer.
Factr is Zuckerberg would be what he is today not matter where he went to school. Remember he left Harvard early he was so sure Facebook would be a success. He did not need the crutch of a Harvard degree to make it. He was going to be a mega-star no matter what.
-
Typical left-wing thinking that no one that is uber-successful has extraordinary skills or talent. No Zuckerberg was just another smuck that got lucky meeting some people at Harvard that launched him into the mega-success that he is.
Restated, if Zuckerberg went to Amherst or another such school (MU?), he would just be an unknown programmer.
Factr is Zuckerberg would be what he is today not matter where he went to school. Remember he left Harvard early he was so sure Facebook would be a success. He did not need the crutch of a Harvard degree to make it. He was going to be a mega-star no matter what.
Although the thing you present as a fact actually is only your opinion -- a fact can be proven with evidence, and there is no way to prove the thesis you present here -- I happen to agree with what you say.
All kinds of successful people have made it without benefit of a college degree. I happen to believe that where one goes to school is, in general, overrated. Again, that is my opinion and I am not presenting it as a fact.
-
Although the thing you present as a fact actually is only your opinion -- a fact can be proven with evidence, and there is no way to prove the thesis you present here -- I happen to agree with what you say.
All kinds of successful people have made it without benefit of a college degree. I happen to believe that where one goes to school is, in general, overrated. Again, that is my opinion and I am not presenting it as a fact.
This I agree with. As I said before, Harvard classes classes are no different that MU's classes. What is different is Harvard gets the most talented kids in the world that are destine to be successful no matter what. They don't train futures successes, they select future successes to attend.
-
Typical left-wing thinking that no one that is uber-successful has extraordinary skills or talent. No Zuckerberg was just another smuck that got lucky meeting some people at Harvard that launched him into the mega-success that he is.
Restated, if Zuckerberg went to Amherst or another such school (MU?), he would just be an unknown programmer.
Factr is Zuckerberg would be what he is today not matter where he went to school. Remember he left Harvard early he was so sure Facebook would be a success. He did not need the crutch of a Harvard degree to make it. He was going to be a mega-star no matter what.
Congrats on making the discussion political. Left/Right has nothing to do with this discussion. Also, never said he didn't have skills or talent. You interject these meaningless concepts in an attempt to attack the individual, since you have no rational base for your statements, and made false statements (one of your people did graduate from Harvard).
What you fail to realize and refuse to acknowledge, is that there are thousands/millions who are extraordinarily skilled and talented. They are not a Zuckerberg because of a lack of opportunity and a lack of connections. Being uber successful requires both skill and opportunity/connections, where the latter is far more likely to lead to long term success.
You have zero evidence to support your assertion that Zuckerberg would be where he is today without Harvard or equivalent. In fact the entire marketing strategy that helped grow Facebook counters that idea. There is a reason the initial expansion that made Facebook huge was to expand to all they Ivy's and Stanford. It was to create the idea of elite and to make everyone want to be part of the "elite network".
A Harvard initiated, elite network of students.
Are you aware that Zuckerberg is not actually a very programer/coder? His success is not due to his brilliant coding/programming, rather a good idea at the right TIME and right PLACE (opportunity), and then the hard work to make sure it got done.
-
Although the thing you present as a fact actually is only your opinion -- a fact can be proven with evidence, and there is no way to prove the thesis you present here -- I happen to agree with what you say.
All kinds of successful people have made it without benefit of a college degree. I happen to believe that where one goes to school is, in general, overrated. Again, that is my opinion and I am not presenting it as a fact.
Curious as to this point. If your point is "where you go to undergrad," is over-rated, I agree in the instance that you intend on going to graduate/professional school.
If it is a general statement, I strongly disagree. People making hiring decisions spend about 10-15 seconds looking at a resume. If they see "Marquette" they may stop and look at the rest. If they see "UW-Lacrosse," they likely keep on going through the list.
If you want to go work for places like McKinsey/Bain/BCG, they won't even look at your resume unless you are a graduate from a handful of schools. Same for most major companies, in regards to their high profile, high paying positions. Can you be tremendously successful without the degree from those schools, yes, but you put yourself behind the 8-ball and make the road much more challenging.
My advice to any student. Go to a school that is good, but cheap. Get lots of scholarships. Dominate all your peers and then go to an elite graduate/professional school. Profit!
-
LIU Post has a nice campus in a good neighborhood. She probably had fun.
She had tons of fun. Loved her experienced. But she also recognizes that she probably would have had tons of fun at a SUNY and loved her experience there as well, for a fraction of the cost. Of course without Post, she wouldn't have been mentored by a professor who graduated from A&M. Without that mentorship she probably wouldn't have come to A&M and met a handsome young cheesehead in his first job out of grad school. So clearly it was worth every penny!
-
Typical left-wing thinking that no one that is uber-successful has extraordinary skills or talent.
Who said that?
Could you give me one example?
#alternatefacts
-
Congrats on making the discussion political. Left/Right has nothing to do with this discussion. Also, never said he didn't have skills or talent. You interject these meaningless concepts in an attempt to attack the individual, since you have no rational base for your statements, and made false statements (one of your people did graduate from Harvard).
What you fail to realize and refuse to acknowledge, is that there are thousands/millions who are extraordinarily skilled and talented. They are not a Zuckerberg because of a lack of opportunity and a lack of connections. Being uber successful requires both skill and opportunity/connections, where the latter is far more likely to lead to long term success.
You have zero evidence to support your assertion that Zuckerberg would be where he is today without Harvard or equivalent. In fact the entire marketing strategy that helped grow Facebook counters that idea. There is a reason the initial expansion that made Facebook huge was to expand to all they Ivy's and Stanford. It was to create the idea of elite and to make everyone want to be part of the "elite network".
A Harvard initiated, elite network of students.
Are you aware that Zuckerberg is not actually a very programer/coder? His success is not due to his brilliant coding/programming, rather a good idea at the right TIME and right PLACE (opportunity), and then the hard work to make sure it got done.
Griffin started his investment fund in 1987 and was already a successful money manager by the time he earned his degree in 1989. So yes, he is one of many people that could not wait until graduation before starting his uber-successful career, like Gates and Zuckerberg. The difference is he finished, but did not need to as he was already make big bucks in Chicago managing money.
FYI here is an entire wiki page with dozens of people that dropped out of Harvard and became uber-successful. The school takes talented kids, not makes talented kids. They are so talented that they were destined to be successful and did not wait around to get a degree. (Griffin is in a smaller category that became successful in business before they actually graduated. But, again, did it without a degree.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harvard_University_non-graduate_alumni
(the non-sports MU equivalent is Tom Synder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Snyder)
Are you aware that Zuckerberg is not actually a very programer/coder? His success is not due to his brilliant coding/programming, rather a good idea at the right TIME and right PLACE (opportunity), and then the hard work to make sure it got done.
This is the story of every successful person. They had the vision and skill to exploit the opportunity presented to them. I have had opportunities that could have made me a billionaire, so have you, and 82 and Brandx. We all were not skilled enough to exploit them like they did.
They have a skill the rest of us do not possess. It was not luck.
-
Griffin started his investment fund in 1987 and was already a successful money manager by the time he earned his degree in 1989. So yes, he is one of many people that could not wait until graduation before starting his uber-successful career, like Gates and Zuckerberg. The difference is he finished, but did not need to as he was already make big bucks in Chicago managing money.
FYI here is an entire wiki page with dozens of people that dropped out of Harvard and became uber-successful. The school takes talented kids, not makes talented kids. They are so talented that they were destined to be successful and did not wait around to get a degree. (Griffin is in a smaller category that became successful in business before they actually graduated. But, again, did it without a degree.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harvard_University_non-graduate_alumni
(the non-sports MU equivalent is Tom Synder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Snyder)
Are you aware that Zuckerberg is not actually a very programer/coder? His success is not due to his brilliant coding/programming, rather a good idea at the right TIME and right PLACE (opportunity), and then the hard work to make sure it got done.
This is the story of every successful person. They had the vision and skill to exploit the opportunity presented to them. I have had opportunities that could have made me a billionaire, so have you, and 82 and Brandx. We all were not skilled enough to exploit them like they did.
They have a skill the rest of us do not possess. It was not luck.
You love to move goal posts and deny actual facts don't you? Griffin's fund he started in 1987 was with money from friends and family (opportunity others do not have). It stayed family and friend until after he graduated from Harvard. He also benefited from Harvard letting him install a satellite dish on the roof, no other University would ever allow that. There is a ton of luck to what happened in 1987 for him, but that is irrelevant...we're focusing on where/when his success began...bottom line, he traded his mom and Grandma's money when at Harvard...that does not a successful career make.
After Graduating from Harvard, he got his real opportunities and real job/investment fund, because of his degree and connections made at Harvard. His success came after Harvard and because of his Harvard connections.
The wiki page you linked, half the people on there did actually graduate from Harvard, many of the others either took a summer class there (not remotely relevant), or transferred to another Ivy school (like Ginsburg)...that doesn't remotely support your assertions.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that I have never had an opportunity that would have made me a billionaire, but I am most certainly skilled enough to exploit it if one arises. But this is again moving the goalposts, you said they don't need "opportunities" provided by being at Harvard etc.
Opportunity is the number 1 thing driving success. Number 2, is having available resources/connections to exploit that opportunity. Number 3 is having the skills and devotion to make sure it succeeds. All three are enhanced by being at top tier Universities. Zuckerberg is one of the best examples of this.
But this is all opinion. So, it is pointless, nothing you have posted supports your assertions regarding the importance of college, by using objective facts, rather conjecture and opinion. All objective facts indicate that going to college is the best way to generate success.
-
You love to move goal posts and deny actual facts don't you? Griffin's fund he started in 1987 was with money from friends and family (opportunity others do not have). It stayed family and friend until after he graduated from Harvard. He also benefited from Harvard letting him install a satellite dish on the roof, no other University would ever allow that. There is a ton of luck to what happened in 1987 for him, but that is irrelevant...we're focusing on where/when his success began...bottom line, he traded his mom and Grandma's money when at Harvard...that does not a successful career make.
After Graduating from Harvard, he got his real opportunities and real job/investment fund, because of his degree and connections made at Harvard. His success came after Harvard and because of his Harvard connections.
What are saying here because this is what I hear ...
Griffin is just a lucky guy and possess no real skill. He started with a $1 million of family money and is now worth $7.5 billion. Anyone can so that if they just go to Harvard and have some insiders grease the skids for them. In fact you probably think those connections are quasi-criminals or people that rig the system for their favor.
-
Congrats on making the discussion political. Left/Right has nothing to do with this discussion. Also, never said he didn't have skills or talent. You interject these meaningless concepts in an attempt to attack the individual, since you have no rational base for your statements, and made false statements (one of your people did graduate from Harvard).
What you fail to realize and refuse to acknowledge, is that there are thousands/millions who are extraordinarily skilled and talented. They are not a Zuckerberg because of a lack of opportunity and a lack of connections. Being uber successful requires both skill and opportunity/connections, where the latter is far more likely to lead to long term success.
You have zero evidence to support your assertion that Zuckerberg would be where he is today without Harvard or equivalent. In fact the entire marketing strategy that helped grow Facebook counters that idea. There is a reason the initial expansion that made Facebook huge was to expand to all they Ivy's and Stanford. It was to create the idea of elite and to make everyone want to be part of the "elite network".
A Harvard initiated, elite network of students.
Are you aware that Zuckerberg is not actually a very programer/coder? His success is not due to his brilliant coding/programming, rather a good idea at the right TIME and right PLACE (opportunity), and then the hard work to make sure it got done.
nm
-
Curious as to this point. If your point is "where you go to undergrad," is over-rated, I agree in the instance that you intend on going to graduate/professional school.
If it is a general statement, I strongly disagree. People making hiring decisions spend about 10-15 seconds looking at a resume. If they see "Marquette" they may stop and look at the rest. If they see "UW-Lacrosse," they likely keep on going through the list.
If you want to go work for places like McKinsey/Bain/BCG, they won't even look at your resume unless you are a graduate from a handful of schools. Same for most major companies, in regards to their high profile, high paying positions. Can you be tremendously successful without the degree from those schools, yes, but you put yourself behind the 8-ball and make the road much more challenging.
My advice to any student. Go to a school that is good, but cheap. Get lots of scholarships. Dominate all your peers and then go to an elite graduate/professional school. Profit!
I defer to your expertise on the subject.
-
Factr is Zuckerberg would be what he is today not matter where he went to school. Remember he left Harvard early he was so sure Facebook would be a success. He did not need the crutch of a Harvard degree to make it. He was going to be a mega-star no matter what.
Try telling that to the Winkelvoss twins and see what they have to say about it.
-
Try telling that to the Winkelvoss twins and see what they have to say about it.
Winklevii told their story to a court, they got $65 million and Zuckerberg is with more than $40 billion.
They got their answer.
-
Winklevii told their story to a court, they got $65 million and Zuckerberg is with more than $40 billion.
They got their answer.
But he would have never launched Facebook if it weren't for them.
-
I defer to your expertise on the subject.
I think we are likely very close in what we are thinking/saying...a message board is just not the easiest/best way to convey and discuss complex ideas and problems though.
-
But he would have never launched Facebook if it weren't for them.
Don't know that. But given that he did, and is now running a company that is worth more than $300 billion and he is worth more than $56 billion (fifth richest on the planet) suggests he is an unparalleled talent.
He would have done something that would have made him worth billions, he is that good.
Restated, lots of people have ideas (the Winklevii) it takes real talent to make it an extraordinary success.
-
Don't know that. But given that he did, and is now running a company that is worth more than $300 billion and he is worth more than $56 billion (fifth richest on the planet) suggests he is an unparalleled talent.
He would have done something that would have made him worth billions, he is that good.
Restated, lots of people have ideas (the Winklevii) it takes real talent to make it an extraordinary success.
You do realize that Mark Zuckerberg stated that the Winklevoss twins idea/site had tremendous backing and support and a great marketing plan and would sink "his site," if both moved forward.
He then literally said he would sabotage them and quote. "F&*% them in the ear".
He also only was successful, because of Eduardo Saverin, who bankrolled him. A man he would never have met if he wasn't at Harvard. A man who Mark also said:
"is rich only because insider trading is apparently not illegal in Brazil".
All this is only possible at Harvard.
-
I think we are likely very close in what we are thinking/saying...a message board is just not the easiest/best way to convey and discuss complex ideas and problems though.
We're cool.
Unlike some Scoopers, I don't need to "win" every discussion!
-
You do realize that Mark Zuckerberg stated that the Winklevoss twins idea/site had tremendous backing and support and a great marketing plan and would sink "his site," if both moved forward.
He then literally said he would sabotage them and quote. "F&*% them in the ear".
He also only was successful, because of Eduardo Saverin, who bankrolled him. A man he would never have met if he wasn't at Harvard. A man who Mark also said:
"is rich only because insider trading is apparently not illegal in Brazil".
All this is only possible at Harvard.
Recapping the Social Network does mean you have it correct
-
Recapping the Social Network does mean you have it correct
I've never seen the Social Network. I'm quoting the legal documents and hard data from Mark's hard drive.
But honestly, I'm done. Believe what you want. I've been wrapped up in your BS too much.
-
I've never seen the Social Network. I'm quoting the legal documents and hard data from Mark's hard drive.
But honestly, I'm done. Believe what you want. I've been wrapped up in your BS too much.
I believe Zuckerberg is an extraordinary talent that converted an idea in a dorm room into a $300 billion company in 15 years. That makes him one of the greatest business people to have ever lived and he is only in his mid-30s. Restated, I believe he could have dropped out of high school and have been as successful as Harvard takes kids that are extraordinary, not makes them extraordinary.
Apparently you seem to be arguing that anyone could have done this and he was merely the lucky one that was in the right place at the right time. You're also insinuating that since he is rich, not only is he lucky (again rich is always luck, never talent) but he is either a thief or of questionable morals. And further your language suggests that the Harvard connections he used must have been shady be they are rich too and since they are rich, they too were merely lucky or stole their wealth.
I'm done with this BS too.
-
Wow, this is bizarre. A debate on the value of college degenerates into a political argument about Mark Zuckerberg.
Couple of constants in life that I hope will help bring closure to this debate:
1) Life aint fair. Never has been. Never will be. Some people who are brilliant struggle mightily in life while some folks who are dumb as ditchwater do extraordinarily well. There's a whole range of factors from brilliance, to drive, to marrying well, to opportunity to blind luck that enter into the equation and sadly, not everyone who works hard gets ahead.
2) No amount of government is going to change Item 1. It can help at the margins by making sure that opportunity exists for everyone, but you can't legislate total fairness. Fairness is an abstract quality and one would hope that it exists in our hearts and our heads.
3) College helps. A person has to take advantage of every single opportunity before him or her. College is one of those opportunities. It teaches. It is a bridge between the world of your family and the real world you are about to enter. Sure, there have been a lot of successful and happy people who never set foot on a college campus. But as I tell my children, don't sit and wait around for a Mark Zuckerberg opportunity to hit you (well, not quite that way but you know what I mean). Zuckerberg is one is about 125 million and if you believe the stars are with you, buy lottery tickets and keep working!
Look, notwithstanding the political aspects of what's been said, it is interesting to listen to different perspectives on college. I do hope that Dr. Lovell and the MU team is listening to some of the very legitimate concerns about the cost of Marquette and the access that many of our children and grandchildren will have to the university.
-
More at the link, below is some highlights ...
America's Outmoded "Factory Model" Educational System Needs to be Radically Reinvented
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2017
oftwomonds.com
Charles Hugh Smith
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2017/02/americas-outmoded-factory-model.html
It's obvious that we desperately need a new decentralized, individualized and far more productive system of education.
I have long held that America's educational system is an outmoded "factory model" designed to produce interchangeable industrial and service workers en masse for an industrial economy of factories and a 1960s-era service sector that needed millions of employees with basic-skills: Is Our Education System Based on a Factory Metaphor? (November 15, 2005)
There are two fatal flaws in this idealistic thinking:
1. Funneling every child into a horrendously costly four-year university has stripped our economy of all the skills that aren't taught in college: welding, pipefitting, etc.
Reskilling America argues that we have purposefully let our practical-skills education decline in favor of the highly impractical goal of issuing millions of diplomas in gender studies, environmental studies, etc., four-year degrees that qualify the graduate to work in coffee shops or as Uber drivers.
Even STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) degrees appear to be mismatched with the real-world job market in terms of what employers want students to know and the number of jobs in STEM that are actually being generated.
Evidence suggests that the number of tech/STEM jobs has remained constant for years, undermining the assumption that graduating 1 million STEM grads magically creates 1 million new STEM jobs in the real world.
2. Most students gain little of value from their four years of squandering $100,000+.
Graduates exit college with a diploma but few if any practical skills, few if any practical knowledge bases and few if any of the eight essential skills I describe in my book Get a Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering Economy.
Consider the study Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses which concluded that "American higher education is characterized by limited or no learning for a large proportion of students."
These charts illustrate the costs and diminishing returns:
(http://www.oftwominds.com/photos2013/college-inflation7-13.gif)
(http://www.oftwominds.com/photos2014/student-loan-income1-14.png)
-
Was there a single fact in that article? The chart at the end looks pretty but all it really shows is that more people are going to college now then ever before.
-
Was there a single fact in that article? The chart at the end looks pretty but all it really shows is that more people are going to college now then ever before.
And it is also simple. As more people get college degrees, the less those degrees may be worth. However that doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile. The average public university graduate who has debt has about the same amount of debt as a used mid sized car loan. Is that worth it? For most people yes.
And that second graph is very misleading and people do this stuff all the time. Putting two lines on a graph and having them cross leads people to believe that something changed. It hasn't. And if you put the real wages of the average high school and tech school graduate on the same graph, it would likely show the same thing, but would undoubtedly be lower.