Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Martin Luther College is Division III therefore the athletes that go there are non scholarship. D3 is no different than your local high school having sports with the exception of having a larger travel budget and having dedicated coaches for the coaches who have limited teaching responsibility.
What you say is true to a point. These athletes are playing their sports at a collegiate level, and this means a collegiate level of dedication. Scholarship or not, it's a tremendous drain on the time of a student that, if it were a serious academic environment, would make it extremely difficult to maintain their studies. When upwards to 1/3 of the campus is playing collegiately (not intramurals) I think that says volumes of the quality of the institution.
Have you ever asked a parent who's kid just graduated high school where junior is going and got the answer, "Johnny is going to XYZ university to play (pick the sport)". Then you follow up that question with "what is Johnny going to study" or "what's his major" and all you get is a blank look from both the parent AND the student? That is the main reason for the existence of the Martin Luther College's.
I played both small college football and baseball and was fairly successful doing so. Academically, myself included, few of the players were serious about studies. I could see the direction this was going and decided to up my game to help my future by leaving this academically inferior college, transfer to a better system, get serious about academics, and quit playing football. I figured it was time to grow up. Best decision I ever made.
What you say is true to a point. These athletes are playing their sports at a collegiate level, and this means a collegiate level of dedication. Scholarship or not, it's a tremendous drain on the time of a student that, if it were a serious academic environment, would make it extremely difficult to maintain their studies. When upwards to 1/3 of the campus is playing collegiately (not intramurals) I think that says volumes of the quality of the institution.
Have you ever asked a parent who's kid just graduated high school where junior is going and got the answer, "Johnny is going to XYZ university to play (pick the sport)". Then you follow up that question with "what is Johnny going to study" or "what's his major" and all you get is a blank look from both the parent AND the student? That is the main reason for the existence of the Martin Luther College's.
I played both small college football and baseball and was fairly successful doing so. Academically, myself included, few of the players were serious about studies. I could see the direction this was going and decided to up my game to help my future by leaving this academically inferior college, transfer to a better system, get serious about academics, and quit playing football. I figured it was time to grow up. Best decision I ever made.
Our oldest and several of her teammates were offered scholarships to various small colleges for soccer. We'd had the conversation with her early and often that soccer was for fun, but college was for education. When it came time, she picked an R1 academic institute and is now an engineer. Of her friends who took the scholarships, most of them had given up soccer and switched to a more academic school by junior year so they could focus on the education.
These closures represent a series of steps down in the drop of higher education’s power. I don’t think it’s going to be as dramatic as a bubble bursting. But higher education became a racket a long time ago. Just look at any inflation graphic that has a comparison in the cost of higher education compared to just about everything else. You can get sickened by how it has skyrocketed despite the quality being stagnant or even deteriorating.
I’m not anti-higher education and believe a fair amount of careers really benefit from it. But administrations squeezing every penny possible they can out of their students while offering millions of worthless degrees was bound to have repercussions.
I just want to say, here, regarding the bolded, that state universities were put in that position by their state legislatures, who chose to slough off support for higher ed as one of their functions and budget items. This began back in the 80's, and continued every decade since: cuts to staff, then closing entire programs even at state flagship schools, then trimming tenured faculty from what remained, and more staff cuts. Replacing survey course professors with grad student TA's. Then later--adjuncts.
It's not even a "crying shame", it's an outrage. Why doesn't the US support its higher public education? What's up with that?!
There appears to be little mention of this in a media, but a considerable number of small colleges are closing, downsizing, cutting programs, or just not replacing professor who retire, quit or die. Even some mid-sized colleges are in trouble.
I've seen a fair amount about this in the media recently, so maybe it's your media sources. In fact, earlier this week there was an article in the NYT about how top tier schools were setting application records while smaller, mid-tier schools were struggling with declining applications and financial issues.
There was a similar article I saw about 1 month ago in another national media org.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff
Our oldest and several of her teammates were offered scholarships to various small colleges for soccer. We'd had the conversation with her early and often that soccer was for fun, but college was for education. When it came time, she picked an R1 academic institute and is now an engineer. Of her friends who took the scholarships, most of them had given up soccer and switched to a more academic school by junior year so they could focus on the education.
While I personally like bigger schools and the academic options that go along with them, there are a lot of small schools that have good undergrad reputations AND a high percentage of students playing intracollegiate athletics. One of my older siblings played Div 3 basketball where about 1/4 of the students were intercollegiate athletes, and most of their team went on to graduate or professional school. In fact, that school was known as a good pre-med school.
Sure, college athletics is a big time suck, but at a small school, you don't have the events and social scene that take up a lot of free time at a bigger school. Plus, most Div 3 athletes know they aren't going to be a pro, so while a lot are competitive and want to win, most focus on school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
I just want to say, here, regarding the bolded, that state universities were put in that position by their state legislatures, who chose to slough off support for higher ed as one of their functions and budget items. This began back in the 80's, and continued every decade since: cuts to staff, then closing entire programs even at state flagship schools, then trimming tenured faculty from what remained, and more staff cuts. Replacing survey course professors with grad student TA's. Then later--adjuncts.
It's not even a "crying shame", it's an outrage. Why doesn't the US support its higher public education? What's up with that?!
Agree, many public universities now get a tiny percent of their support from state governments. Tuition is now a much bigger component. Typically, budgets get cut during recessions, and almost none is restored in better times. When funding does goes up, usually it's just keeping the same per student funding as enrollments grow.
Too bad she couldn't use that "white privilege" card we're all supposed to disgustingly have according to all the social justice experts. I'm wondering which month will be designated as "White History Month" or "Asian History Month." Whatever happened to being judged not by the color of your skin, but by the content of your character? I don't see a level playing field here.
Many of these colleges have to start re-inventing themselves to stay relevant. Too many majors offered not providing a path to a job that pays a living wage. It's also not necessary to build buildings that mirror a royal palace and this includes sports venues. Everybody's trying to outdo the others. All this does is add to the tremendous financial burden that student incur.
I do believe that this pandemic will create the necessity for closing a lot of marginal institutions. I hate to say it, but I think there's a few that need closing. I just saw a top 10 list of colleges to NOT attend comparing their cost and the student's success in finding good paying jobs after graduating from there. It was a pretty telling list.
This was / is my alma mater. When I attended my state institution of higher learning it was for the most part a bare bones campus. A mix of buildings from the mid 90s combined with buildings from the 1970s. Very plain in my opinion. I graduated in 03 and within 12-18 months the powers that be had begun to do what you just talked about and that was try to "out do" other campuses when it came to buildings, grounds, facilities. I understand that students won't come in the house if it looks "ratty" but unfortunately this has resulted in the cost of attendance soaring. Looking back I was fine with my mediocre looking campus so long as it didn't cost me an arm and a leg.
I just want to say, here, regarding the bolded, that state universities were put in that position by their state legislatures, who chose to slough off support for higher ed as one of their functions and budget items. This began back in the 80's, and continued every decade since: cuts to staff, then closing entire programs even at state flagship schools, then trimming tenured faculty from what remained, and more staff cuts. Replacing survey course professors with grad student TA's. Then later--adjuncts.
It's not even a "crying shame", it's an outrage. Why doesn't the US support its higher public education? What's up with that?!
I haven't seen any cut backs at colleges where I'm from as far as majors offered. In fact, it's just the opposite. Too many additional majors offered that in my opinion are nearly worthless. Yet, like you stated, there's been BIG cutbacks as to state support and to experienced professors. Today's college costs in comparison to what you're receiving IS a crying shame.
When I attended college in the 70's I can only remember 4 GA's in all my years. I don't think that they had any adjunct professors. I had never even heard that term back then. At the university I graduated from the professors were nearly all top notch. For that matter, the GA's were pretty good too, but the courses they taught were general courses and beginner major courses like Principles of Accounting. You didn't see a GA your junior or senior years.
Today's students, just because of the faculty cuts, are not getting value in what they're having to pay.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,745 posts, read 58,102,528 times
Reputation: 46232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
.... It's not even a "crying shame", it's an outrage. Why doesn't the US support its higher public education? What's up with that?!
As one who has hired STEM internationally (For USA, Euro, and Asia operations) ... USA grads are not often very competitive as candidates, and are certainly not prepared to enter your workforce ready or willing to contribute.
For USA to further perpetuate what it has utterly destroyed (K-12edu), is criminal as well.
You would be very surprised at the quality of educated engineers and scientists (and educators) available outside the confines of the USA and it's 'babysitting' / enabling system of education (?).
(3) of our small, private local universities have closed in the past 2 yrs. Really left their students hanging, especially those near graduation.
Criminal behavior as well. (As to be expected from USA academia)
I just want to say, here, regarding the bolded, that state universities were put in that position by their state legislatures, who chose to slough off support for higher ed as one of their functions and budget items. This began back in the 80's, and continued every decade since: cuts to staff, then closing entire programs even at state flagship schools, then trimming tenured faculty from what remained, and more staff cuts. Replacing survey course professors with grad student TA's. Then later--adjuncts.
It's not even a "crying shame", it's an outrage. Why doesn't the US support its higher public education? What's up with that?!
I've hesitated responding, trying to find a politically correct way of answering, but there isn't one. There are a couple of truths that aren't pretty, but I think drive much of the issues being discussion. These aren't in any order, but stream of conscious in putting them down.
A. Starting in the 60s the school systems began pushing the everyone must go to college mantra. I've mentioned before how we were issued book covers that talked about the importance of college and listed the typical incomes and lifetime earnings of a dropout, high school graduate, and college graduate. At the time, trade school was considered as high school graduate. This mantra grew throughout the years so more and more students were pushed toward college that simply didn't belong there. Their skills and talents would have been better met in a trade school or vo-tech situation. I know there are those on CD that don't like me saying this and I usually catch heck for it, but it's the truth. This increased demand drove the need for colleges to expand significantly. The college I attended has more than doubled the number of students. And that expansion costs -- buildings for classrooms and labs, dorms, professors, equipment (esp computer and IT services that didn't exist when we went). It was pushed in this state's K-12 education plan (current governor has changed it to include Vo-Tech as a desirable outcome once again, but for years it was treated as poor relative by the school systems).
At the same time, many states were cutting, or limiting, state funding for those same university systems that were growing tremendously. Which brings up point B.
B. Whichever side of the political fence one is on, there have been quite a few academics who have used (or some would say, misused) their position and tenure in, shall we say, radical ways. The fact that they are a small percentage of the total faculty population is overcome by the media frenzy they've created. To put it in very simple terms, those who depend heavily on taxpayer funds for their jobs would do well not to P---- off 50% of the population that pays their salary. Legislatures react to a PO'd taxpayer base. And part of the reaction has been to limit state funds. Whether one agrees or disagrees, this is reality.
C. Somewhat related to both A & B above has been the growth of questionable degree programs. Programs that might fit someone's self actualization, but don't lead to marketable skills for the most part. These cost money and produce poor outcomes. Again something that taxpayers and legislatures don't like.
D. Quality. A fallout of A & B has been a somewhat decrease in quality of the average product. While the top students are still the top, too many students that really shouldn't have been in college have brought the average down. Funding decreases have also impacted education quality in an era when high tech understanding is essential. Even for non STEM people.
These kind of results don't sit well with a population that feels ignored by an "over-educated elite" who pressure legislatures to cut funding as a means of limiting the number of "over-educated elite" out there. Again, one doesn't have to agree with them to recognize it's reality.
Many colleges either only consider or strongly favor minority professors in order to improve their ratios of minority professors. She is finding it very difficult to compete for the few decent jobs available.
Much more importantly, they favor applicants in a "hot" field, meaning that the applicant's research will draw in more majors -- and ideally, more college applicants. Currently data science has an abundance of academic job openings, since there's a ton of student interest, and relatively few currently tenured faculty specialize in it. I've heard that Asian history is much more in demand than European history. And I'm sure other fields have a similar dynamic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens
My daughter is a visiting professor at a small rural college. They opened a tenure track position with the idea that she could apply and move to a tenured position. Surprisingly, they ended up with 67 applicants for the position. Professors with loads of experience and from some well known colleges applied because their college was closing or downsizing. Needless to say many of the applicants were either more qualified and/or more racially appealing, so she lost her job instead.
Well yeah, if her college is investing in a tenure-track line (a rarer event every year), they will do a full national search for a candidate -- yes, even if "eligible" people already exist on campus. She may have a marginal advantage over "unknown" applicants since the school's familiar with her teaching, but that's not enough to move to the top of the pile.
I'm full-time non-tenure-track faculty. My contract was just extended for 2 more years, but with COVID I'm prepared (or not) for anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
