U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-26-2022, 09:03 AM
 
10,919 posts, read 7,001,580 times
Reputation: 30232

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSPNative View Post
I’d set up open-enrollment low-cost public universities that would offer classes and career placement assistance. That’s it.

They would be open enrollment and very low cost so that anyone could attend.

They wouldn’t offer dorms or other extracurriculars, thus avoiding the woke/political nonsense of today.

Their goal would be get as many people a degree as possible, meeting some kind of minimum standards.

Let’s face it: a college degree is an entry requirement for the middle class, yet college is far too expensive. And college has strayed too far from what I view as its purpose: getting people qualified for employment.
Open enrollment? So you have no qualification standards?

No dorms? So you'll build one in every town?

"get as many people a degree as possibile" So you'll devalue a college degree the same way a high school diploma is worthless today?

"meeting some kind of minimum standards" How minimum will your standards be? The only way to get more degrees into the hands of more people with no qualification standards is to lower the standards much as has happened in high school.

" college has strayed too far from what I view as its purpose: getting people qualified for employment." That was never the purpose of college.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-26-2022, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
45,163 posts, read 19,779,748 times
Reputation: 29767
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSPNative View Post
I’d set up open-enrollment low-cost public universities that would offer classes and career placement assistance. That’s it.

They would be open enrollment and very low cost so that anyone could attend.

They wouldn’t offer dorms or other extracurriculars, thus avoiding the woke/political nonsense of today.

Their goal would be get as many people a degree as possible, meeting some kind of minimum standards.

Let’s face it: a college degree is an entry requirement for the middle class, yet college is far too expensive. And college has strayed too far from what I view as its purpose: getting people qualified for employment.
1. It sounds as if what you are advocating is, essentially, community college. Voila, you've got it.

2. You're against being 'woke'? Do you even know the definition of 'woke'?: "alert to injustice in society". So you're fine with injustice?

3. There is a much bigger goal of college education than just getting a job. It's about having a truly educated population. College/university is more than a trade school.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2022, 10:53 AM
 
1,896 posts, read 771,832 times
Reputation: 3124
To respond in part to the two posts above:

1. People are locked out of college degrees for many reasons, including high costs and the application process. I am not calling for more community colleges; we have those. I am calling for four-year colleges, which grant a ticket to the middle class (a BA or BS) but don’t have those barriers to entry.

2. I graduated from a (at the time) top-10 liberal arts college and an Ivy. The LAC goes on and on about how it does so many amazing things such as character-building, creating intellectual curiosity, etc. Whatever. If you want to learn just to learn, take an online class. People go to name schools because of the job prospects and prestige that gives advantages throughout life. Or at least I did. An open-enrollment 4-year college gives the prestige of a college degree to those who would otherwise do without.

3. Not favoring wokeness means that I favor injustice? That kind of nonsensical attack doesn’t even merit a response.

4. College degrees have already been devalued; there are plenty of mediocre colleges out there. But a college degree is still an entry requirement for lots of jobs.

5. I would expect these open-enrollment colleges to attract commuter students, so they could be built wherever enough prospective students already live. Private investors already build plenty of college dorms and are free to do so. These colleges would have only one focus: classes and issuing degrees.

If anyone else has solutions for expanding college access to people who don’t go because of costs, the application process, etc., I welcome them.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2022, 07:59 PM
 
10,919 posts, read 7,001,580 times
Reputation: 30232
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSPNative View Post
To respond in part to the two posts above:

1. People are locked out of college degrees for many reasons, including high costs and the application process. I am not calling for more community colleges; we have those. I am calling for four-year colleges, which grant a ticket to the middle class (a BA or BS) but don’t have those barriers to entry.
.
You didn't answer the question about qualification. You keep saying open admissions but are you arguing there should be no qualifications for admission to college?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSPNative View Post

2. I graduated from a (at the time) top-10 liberal arts college and an Ivy. The LAC goes on and on about how it does so many amazing things such as character-building, creating intellectual curiosity, etc. Whatever. If you want to learn just to learn, take an online class. People go to name schools because of the job prospects and prestige that gives advantages throughout life. Or at least I did. An open-enrollment 4-year college gives the prestige of a college degree to those who would otherwise do without.
.
How does open enrollment give the prestige of a college degree? Are you going to just give a degree to everyone? Are you going to have any standards for graduation? Prestige comes from the difficulty/limited quantity out there. Doctors, engineers, etc are paid more because those degree are hard to get. They require certain skillsets to complete the degree that not everyone has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSPNative View Post
4. College degrees have already been devalued; there are plenty of mediocre colleges out there. But a college degree is still an entry requirement for lots of jobs.
.
So you would devalue them more by adding more mediocre colleges? We devalue the high school diploma so that a college degree becomes the standard. Then devalue the college degree so the master's becomes the new minimum. Perhaps instead of a degree for everyone, we make the degrees valuable by increasing the minimums, not lowering them. Think in sports terms: Teams don't become dynasties by lowering their standards; they raise them, and the top performers want to play on such teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSPNative View Post
5. I would expect these open-enrollment colleges to attract commuter students, so they could be built wherever enough prospective students already live. Private investors already build plenty of college dorms and are free to do so. These colleges would have only one focus: classes and issuing degrees.
.
So basically four more years of high school. Grades 13-16. Show up for four years, do the minimum, and pick up your degree. Actually, putting forth effort and learning something is such a waste of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSPNative View Post
If anyone else has solutions for expanding college access to people who don’t go because of costs, the application process, etc., I welcome them.
There is really no reason today for costs to prevent someone from attending college. But you asked so I would propose the following:

a. College level skills are a national imperative to complete with China and the rest of the world. Therefore I'd fund college, at least the first two years for those who meet the qualifications and major in the fields needed. (Yes, I"ll include education as an essential field, but not the fluff and stuff)
b. Increase the qualifications rather than lower them. Just for a number to start the discussion, the top 30% of high school graduates would be eligible for tuition funding.
c. Provide funding based on merit, not need. Merit is need blind.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2022, 09:14 PM
 
1,896 posts, read 771,832 times
Reputation: 3124
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
You didn't answer the question about qualification. You keep saying open admissions but are you arguing there should be no qualifications for admission to college?


How does open enrollment give the prestige of a college degree? Are you going to just give a degree to everyone? Are you going to have any standards for graduation? Prestige comes from the difficulty/limited quantity out there. Doctors, engineers, etc are paid more because those degree are hard to get. They require certain skillsets to complete the degree that not everyone has.


So you would devalue them more by adding more mediocre colleges? We devalue the high school diploma so that a college degree becomes the standard. Then devalue the college degree so the master's becomes the new minimum. Perhaps instead of a degree for everyone, we make the degrees valuable by increasing the minimums, not lowering them. Think in sports terms: Teams don't become dynasties by lowering their standards; they raise them, and the top performers want to play on such teams.


So basically four more years of high school. Grades 13-16. Show up for four years, do the minimum, and pick up your degree. Actually, putting forth effort and learning something is such a waste of time.



There is really no reason today for costs to prevent someone from attending college. But you asked so I would propose the following:

a. College level skills are a national imperative to complete with China and the rest of the world. Therefore I'd fund college, at least the first two years for those who meet the qualifications and major in the fields needed. (Yes, I"ll include education as an essential field, but not the fluff and stuff)
b. Increase the qualifications rather than lower them. Just for a number to start the discussion, the top 30% of high school graduates would be eligible for tuition funding.
c. Provide funding based on merit, not need. Merit is need blind.
I have no objection to your proposal.

For mine, the open enrollment college proposal:

Many if not mediocre schools are already basically open enrollment. Local State U already takes pretty much anyone. But there’s still an application process and costs. Get rid of both and just make it open enrollment, and free tuition. And that degrades college degrees? Most schools aren’t that great anyway and once you’ve graduated and are mid-career, nobody really asks where you went and what degree you have. All that matters is that you have a degree from somewhere.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2022, 09:16 AM
 
16,190 posts, read 14,696,611 times
Reputation: 14607
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSPNative View Post
I have no objection to your proposal.

For mine, the open enrollment college proposal:

Many if not mediocre schools are already basically open enrollment. Local State U already takes pretty much anyone. But there’s still an application process and costs. Get rid of both and just make it open enrollment, and free tuition. And that degrades college degrees? Most schools aren’t that great anyway and once you’ve graduated and are mid-career, nobody really asks where you went and what degree you have. All that matters is that you have a degree from somewhere.
Current admissions requirements across the various schools are intended to accomplish a few things.

1. If a prospect can't muster the gumption and a few bucks to complete an application process what chance does s/he have to earn a degree?

2. Every college, even schools required by state law to accept "all" high school grads who apply must vet, sort and properly place the group. The admissions process adds understanding towards which admits need exceptional help, remedial work etc. all the way to which are ready for nuclear engineering/nuclear physics etc..

3. Just about every college who must accept "everyone" has a bailout process buried in the fine print........a minimum SAT score, panel decision etc. that precludes those who have no chance from admission.




FWIIW Italy more or less proves the point that nationwide "free/almost free" college is a horrible idea. The yield is way too many students with degrees in areas employers do not value.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...tion-in-italy/
https://qz.com/145217/its-harder-to-...an-without-one
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2022, 11:15 AM
 
3,820 posts, read 3,755,458 times
Reputation: 4859
If I were king of education, I would change two things, the first eventually affecting the second.

One of the biggest challenges in many schools across the country is that many children are arriving at formal education as much as 50% behind in vocabulary development, due to inadequacies in the home environment. That phenomenon is barely ameliorated by schooling, with many of those children remaining 50% behind as they move up the grades. Part of the reason for that is the pruning away of neurological pathways in early childhood, as brain development moves into the next phase. Universal early childhood education based on research to enrich brain development would go a long way to ensuring that five-year-olds are ready for academic learning.

The second thing that I would change is the way we handle the middle school years. This is the second point at which the United States begins to fall behind the other developing nations. We spend too little time moving forward and too much time rehashing concepts and skills that should have been mastered in elementary school. Again, decisions should be made based on research that matches brain development with curriculum. This is the time when children begin being able to understand formal operations, but that milestone is not reached by all simultaneously. It may be time to reconsider skills-based tracking, as opposed to aptitude-based tracking that fell into disfavor in the past. We would have to deal with the disparities that correlate with the various socioeconomic conditions that led to the dismantling of tracking, not a straightforward task.

If those two things occurred, early childhood education and a stronger middle school program, then I would suggest that the U. S. could alter its current standardized testing of students schedule and test only at the end of elementary and the end of middle school before moving to the high school exit exams. This system works well in the countries that use it. An added plus would be the significant savings that is currently going to the educational-testing industry, a subject I have beaten to death in other posts.

Of course, in the United States, everything follows the money, and currently there is a lot of money to be made in keeping things the way they are. If I were king, I would make sure that the money trails in the education system would be based on the best interests of the students rather than those who would profit from them and their deficiencies.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2022, 11:27 AM
 
10,919 posts, read 7,001,580 times
Reputation: 30232
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
The second thing that I would change is the way we handle the middle school years. This is the second point at which the United States begins to fall behind the other developing nations. We spend too little time moving forward and too much time rehashing concepts and skills that should have been mastered in elementary school. Again, decisions should be made based on research that matches brain development with curriculum. This is the time when children begin being able to understand formal operations, but that milestone is not reached by all simultaneously. It may be time to reconsider skills-based tracking, as opposed to aptitude-based tracking that fell into disfavor in the past. We would have to deal with the disparities that correlate with the various socioeconomic conditions that led to the dismantling of tracking, not a straightforward task.
.
Would you mind going a bit deeper into what you see the pros/cons or differences between skills-based vs aptitude-based? I can see some distinctions but I'm not sure that what I'm envisioning is what you're discussing. Would love to hear more.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2022, 12:44 PM
 
1,896 posts, read 771,832 times
Reputation: 3124
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
Current admissions requirements across the various schools are intended to accomplish a few things.

1. If a prospect can't muster the gumption and a few bucks to complete an application process what chance does s/he have to earn a degree?

2. Every college, even schools required by state law to accept "all" high school grads who apply must vet, sort and properly place the group. The admissions process adds understanding towards which admits need exceptional help, remedial work etc. all the way to which are ready for nuclear engineering/nuclear physics etc..

3. Just about every college who must accept "everyone" has a bailout process buried in the fine print........a minimum SAT score, panel decision etc. that precludes those who have no chance from admission.




FWIIW Italy more or less proves the point that nationwide "free/almost free" college is a horrible idea. The yield is way too many students with degrees in areas employers do not value.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...tion-in-italy/
https://qz.com/145217/its-harder-to-...an-without-one
Then limit the programs offered in open-enrollment schools to be STEM, business, medical, etc. fields.

Yes, if someone can’t fill out an admissions form, that indicates that the person may not fare too well in school. But I’m told that non-Asian people of color are victims in the college admissions process, dissuaded from applying by confusing financial aid forms, tests (which favor wealthier people who can pay for test prep courses), etc. Open-enrollment schools would be for these types of students, who otherwise wouldn’t attend college.

Sure, they may need remedial coursework. That can be done once they’re in.

I would expect that a lot of students in open-enrollment schools wouldn’t graduate and wouldn’t do well. But some college education is better than none, particularly when there are no barriers to entry and no costs for the student.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2022, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
45,163 posts, read 19,779,748 times
Reputation: 29767
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
If I were king of education, I would change two things, the first eventually affecting the second.

One of the biggest challenges in many schools across the country is that many children are arriving at formal education as much as 50% behind in vocabulary development, due to inadequacies in the home environment. That phenomenon is barely ameliorated by schooling, with many of those children remaining 50% behind as they move up the grades. Part of the reason for that is the pruning away of neurological pathways in early childhood, as brain development moves into the next phase. Universal early childhood education based on research to enrich brain development would go a long way to ensuring that five-year-olds are ready for academic learning.

The second thing that I would change is the way we handle the middle school years. This is the second point at which the United States begins to fall behind the other developing nations. We spend too little time moving forward and too much time rehashing concepts and skills that should have been mastered in elementary school. Again, decisions should be made based on research that matches brain development with curriculum. This is the time when children begin being able to understand formal operations, but that milestone is not reached by all simultaneously. It may be time to reconsider skills-based tracking, as opposed to aptitude-based tracking that fell into disfavor in the past. We would have to deal with the disparities that correlate with the various socioeconomic conditions that led to the dismantling of tracking, not a straightforward task.

If those two things occurred, early childhood education and a stronger middle school program, then I would suggest that the U. S. could alter its current standardized testing of students schedule and test only at the end of elementary and the end of middle school before moving to the high school exit exams. This system works well in the countries that use it. An added plus would be the significant savings that is currently going to the educational-testing industry, a subject I have beaten to death in other posts.

Of course, in the United States, everything follows the money, and currently there is a lot of money to be made in keeping things the way they are. If I were king, I would make sure that the money trails in the education system would be based on the best interests of the students rather than those who would profit from them and their deficiencies.

Good. The challenge will be to get teachers to change teaching behaviors based on research and best practices.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top