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.
Universities should not be gouging students for money. They should live on government grants, alumni donations, and modest tuition. Stop wasting billions of dollars on fancy student activity centers, luxury condos for dorms, overpaid bureaucrats who outnumber and out-earn the professors. Stop with the over-priced, gold-plated state-of-the-art halls (other than scientific research facilities).
Oh, and stop admitting under-qualified, unprepared fools. Set high standards and don't compromise. If someone graduates and is working as a barista, they should never have gone to college in the first place.
A university should be a rigorous center of learning, not a remedial school for high school failures and social justice activists.
Not that many college graduates are working as baristas, but I get your point.
Ironically, when the Senate was debating re-authorization of the Higher Education Act in the early 1970s, college presidents testified that this exact thing would happen - that universities would start competing on things OTHER than academic rigor to attract students. They obviously knew that academic rigor is not exactly a selling point for 18 year olds.
The HEA is what expanded student loans, and it was passed in massive bi-partisan fashion. The thinking of the senators was that it would promote competition and students would "vote with their feet" by going to the best schools. That's not what happened. They competed yes, but on all kinds of extraneous stuff.
Not that many college graduates are working as baristas, but I get your point.
Ironically, when the Senate was debating re-authorization of the Higher Education Act in the early 1970s, college presidents testified that this exact thing would happen - that universities would start competing on things OTHER than academic rigor to attract students. They obviously knew that academic rigor is not exactly a selling point for 18 year olds.
The HEA is what expanded student loans, and it was passed in massive bi-partisan fashion. The thinking of the senators was that it would promote competition and students would "vote with their feet" by going to the best schools. That's not what happened. They competed yes, but on all kinds of extraneous stuff.
I think a major reason for the deterioration of universities is the steady decline of the student age population.
The 1960s was the high water mark, with a vast Baby Boom generation coming of age, and was also the height of the Vietnam War, when college was the preferred way to avoid the draft. University campuses were overflowing.
As enrollment declined, and as state & federal agencies became less generous with grant money in the harsher economic climate of the 1970s and early 1980s, universities had to look abroad for a well heeled student population willing to pay exorbitant rates to come here. They diplomatically referred to it as "campus enrichment" -- foreigners lent cultural spice to campus life. The financial advantages were not talked up; no point in looking too crass.
But the numbers didn't really make up for the aging of the Boomer group.
The sad fact is that we have too many universities. A bunch of them are probably going to have to close.
I think what they should do first is allow student loans to go in bankruptcy proceedings. Some will do it no matter what, the day after they graduate. Yet the world gets an immediate look at the character of this young adult. Even if you struggled and paid for 6 years and then hand to declare, that's different than an immediate declare. Plus a declare pretty much prevents you from ever seeking additional student loans.
It think what it would do would open it up to two parties to negotiate and in that process they can find the right answer to make this work. That might be lower interest rates, longer repayment term, temporary deferral. Or they can skip right to a no consult banko charge, pay the income tax on the amount gone in banko court, and the court judges will hopefully be keen about snagging odd assets to keep the thing from being gamed.
I think a major reason for the deterioration of universities is the steady decline of the student age population.
The 1960s was the high water mark, with a vast Baby Boom generation coming of age, and was also the height of the Vietnam War, when college was the preferred way to avoid the draft. University campuses were overflowing.
As enrollment declined, and as state & federal agencies became less generous with grant money in the harsher economic climate of the 1970s and early 1980s, universities had to look abroad for a well heeled student population willing to pay exorbitant rates to come here. They diplomatically referred to it as "campus enrichment" -- foreigners lent cultural spice to campus life. The financial advantages were not talked up; no point in looking too crass.
But the numbers didn't really make up for the aging of the Boomer group.
The sad fact is that we have too many universities. A bunch of them are probably going to have to close.
Only in some states. In the northeast and upper midwest yes, they are built out. A number of the already weak private colleges are in trouble. But they actually need more campuses in states like Arizona and Texas that are growing with young people.
College enrollment is way up compared to the 1960s though. WAY up. A lot of the baby boomers didn't go to college. About 70% of Gen Z will at least take a few classes.
In 1970 there were about 9 million college students. We hit a peak of over 20 million circa 2011. We're still at about 17 million. Before covid, that number projected to be fairly steady through the 2020s. Projections are a drop of 5-20% because of covid, but that won't be permanent.
At my college we've only seen a drop because it's physically impossible to offer a number of programs socially distant. Overall we are actually up in enrollment for the first time in about 6-7 years.
Do you really need 4 years? 1.5 years is spent taking University core classes. (classes that you have taken since JHS to HS)
Half a year taking university core = MS Office, Business Math, Business Writing/Communications, Personal Finance. Then off you go to your major courses. Some courses can be taken online; others in class. This way Colleges/Unis can lower their real estate and further lower their cost.
Do you really need 4 years? 1.5 years is spent taking University core classes. (classes that you have taken since JHS to HS)
Half a year taking university core = MS Office, Business Math, Business Writing/Communications, Personal Finance. Then off you go to your major courses. Some courses can be taken online; others in class. This way Colleges/Unis can lower their real estate and further lower their cost.
I still maintain some form of MOOCs/online courses and in person CC instruction is more than fine for the first 2-3 years of most UG instruction. We are about to find out too. If colleges can make online learning work for an entire year there is no reason to argue it's inferior...or they are arguing they are providing an inferior product to all current students without a discount.
I've honestly learned a ton from MOOCs. I still take them to this day to continue learning. I'm taking the deep learning ai natural language processing specialization right now that's taught by one of the foremost experts in the field of machine learning Andrew Ng and I'll pay ~$40/course. When I was in UG 14 years ago I paid about 10-15x that for my intro to microeconomics course at a state uni.
The entire education system will collapse if the student debt market fails. Probably for the best as it is not sustainable at this point but it would be a might painful ride down to the bottom for them.
The entire education system will collapse if the student debt market fails. Probably for the best as it is not sustainable at this point but it would be a might painful ride down to the bottom for them.
You've had colleges in the last (20) years expand campuses and programs to accommodate elevated enrollment. Elevated enrollment usually means an uptick in tuition and fees, since students are coming to that university via scholarship, students loans, or parents/grandparents. I would definitely say student loans have contributed to some of the issues we're seeing in higher education. You have too many students pursuing a degree, who either should have went to trade school or did something far less mentally demanding. Subtle cracks were forming during the Great Recession and the cracks have only grown since.
What about forcing colleges to grant credit to anyone that can pass testing in a given subject without outrageous fees. Let's say 100 bucks for the test monitoring and administration. Students would have the opportunity to study on their own for some or all the classes required for a degree.
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.
