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.
That wasn't how it was back in the day. It was people from the wealthiest families who attended college. They weren't necessarily smarter than everyone else. They had more educational advantages, though and money to get them to college.
Depends on how far back 'in the day' you mean.
And where in the country you were.
Only 40-50 years ago in the NY metro area it WAS the smartest and most diligent students from mainly middle class families that applied and were admitted to many colleges, both private and City or State institutions which were fine schools with high academic standards.
Most of my suburban high school went to Queens College in Flushing or to the City University of NY.
Some went out of state and the top went Ivy.
We were all baby boomers AND NO ONE WAS EVEN REMOTELY WEALTHY!
We were just smart, motivated, good kids from strong families and college was CHEAP, like practically free.
You had to have an 88 avg, which was no small feat as they did not give out A's like tic tacs in those days.
There was no AP then because both high school and college required true competency to advance.
And if you got a Regents scholarship for $400 /year you MADE money!
(I bought a used Olds Dynamic 88 convertible with the money from that scholarship!)
Although almost everyone graduated in four years the overall percent of the general student population that completed this milestone was but %10-%15. You did not need a 'specialized' major because the baccalaureate alone made you special.
It was certainly a different world back then; one where merit and hard work translated directly into opportunity. You see, that's how the whole 'college as the path to success' started... with the truth.
Last edited by PamelaIamela; 04-05-2019 at 10:40 PM..
The entire premise of this thread is wrong since "everybody and their mom" does not go to college in any event.
Roughly 68% of 2016 graduates went on to college. That includes 4 year and 2 year institutions. When I was teaching my graduates split about evenly between 4 year and the local community college.
One thing that is lost in this is that community colleges were not originally designed to cater to students going on to a 4 year school but as trade schools and for adult continuing education. At some point the mission changed.
This is a chart for college attendance from 1960 to 1998. It went from just under 50% in 1960 (kids born ca. 1941) to around 65% in 1998 (kids born ca. 1980), not much different than 2018. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d99/d99t187.asp
The community colleges are still catering to trade schools but typically they still need gen eds regardless of if it is university prep, just an associates or a trade degree. I went to community college and the trades which included nursing and auto shop were actually widely promoted. This was nearly a decade ago. The issue is most people don't go down that path since many bought into the lie about college, college, college. College as much as I had a great experience with it, it isn't the be all, end all.
I went to college and appreciate what I learned even if I don't use the hard skills I learned in it as much as I maybe should I learned from my degree. That said, I think the problem is we pushing it too much. The problem there is no solution that will appease everyone. If we do aptitude testing to encourage/push students into a career or college path in high school (like many suggest), it will inevitably **** off some parent that thinks their cherub should goto college and not be stuck in a trade which is "below them."
I don't think raising entrance requirements will help either. Many schools people go to are state schools (University of ____, _____ State University, etc.) and to recieve state funding, these schools would likely get a HUGE backlash for this. And most private universities whether religious or not typically are already tough to get into.
Real universities and colleges are hard to get into and turn away many more applicants than they accept. I believe the fraction of American students attending real universities and colleges is about what it always was - what, maybe 10%?
There are also a lot of entities that call themselves "college" or "university" but lack academic rigor or standards.
Most educated people are able to recognize the difference.
Wow. Just wow.
I came here to post and you basically said everything. I have nothing to add at the moment.
As it is, everybody and their mom can go to college, as a result, student debt is insane and lots of people are just dumb and shouldn't be in college at all. What if there were far stricter requirements, say only the smartest most intelligent people were allowed to go to college? Kind of like how it was back in the day?
You mean, back in the day when the U.S. was a manufacturing economy, when a college education was far less important than it is in today's service economy?
There's your answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV
Yes and no. I'm sick of folks maligning the term "Liberal Arts." I think they often confuse it with fine arts? You are correct that it doesn't train for a specific job like nursing, but it doesn't mean that you aren't taught skills needed for specific areas of work.
A graduate with a BA from a Liberal Arts college could have a degree in anything from Economics, Mathematics, English, Philosopy, Biology, Physics.
I think the confusion often comes from the 'liberal' part. They're oblivious to the fact that, like most words, 'liberal' has numerous meanings, so they think that liberal arts must entail shrines to Nancy Pelosi, supporting Amtrak, and wearing Che Guevara t-shirts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaErik
When you go straight to the race card you've already lost the argument. My post is based on numerous articles I've read on the matter. This is just one. Google "race based university admissions" and you can find plenty more. And no, I'm not a racist and never have been. I'm a first generation American born to immigrant parents.
So you're saying you 'lost the argument' when you were the first poster to inject race into this thread (post#9)?
Classic. You bring up race, then carp over someone else playing 'the race card'.
...I don't think raising entrance requirements will help either. Many schools people go to are state schools (University of ____, _____ State University, etc.) and to recieve state funding, these schools would likely get a HUGE backlash for this. And most private universities whether religious or not typically are already tough to get into.
Here's a useful source that we used for both our kids when planning college: https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/
Input the school of interest and you get a lot of facts about cost, student body, SAT/ACT scores, GPA, graduation rate, loan default rate, etc. Just facts, no marketing hype.
One item we looked at was the admissions cohort SAT/ACT scores for the middle 50%. That gives some idea of the overall student body quality. We also looked closely at retention rate (how many students stayed at the same school as an indicator) as well as graduation rate and default rate. While we didn't do a formal analysis, schools with higher scoring students also had higher retention rates, higher graduation rates, and lower loan default rates than schools with lower admission scores.
We put the schools in a table and it was pretty obvious which were reach, which were in the zone, which were "safe" schools, and which we should discard. Our kids used that to focus their applications and both were accepted to their first choice. Only bad part is both were out of state because the other thing the table showed us was how non competitive our in state schools are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulsker 1856
I think the confusion often comes from the 'liberal' part. They're oblivious to the fact that, like most words, 'liberal' has numerous meanings, so they think that liberal arts must entail shrines to Nancy Pelosi, supporting Amtrak, and wearing Che Guevara t-shirts.
Nope, not at all. I don't think it comes from either the "arts" part or the "liberal" part. Instead it comes from the common understanding that "liberal arts" means things like, but not limited to English, Lit, Geography, Music, Art, Philosophy, and other non-technical courses. The courses that most people consider you learned in high school and very few people have any need to study further. Versus Science, Math, Engineering, Business which most people consider useful courses. I'm not talking here the literal definition of "liberal arts" but the way most people think when they hear it. We have to remember that Joe Bag-of-Donuts doesn't think Nancy Pelosi; he thinks waste of time.
Nope, not at all. I don't think it comes from either the "arts" part or the "liberal" part. Instead it comes from the common understanding that "liberal arts" means things like, but not limited to English, Lit, Geography, Music, Art, Philosophy, and other non-technical courses. The courses that most people consider you learned in high school and very few people have any need to study further. Versus Science, Math, Engineering, Business which most people consider useful courses.
The idea of which is actually contrary to the OP. "Back in the day" a University education implied well-rounded, scholarly thinking; the ability to research and communicate thoughtfully. Current arguments such as the above seem to want to limit the idea of university education and instead provide what amounts to STEM job training academies. I have no issue with STEM at all - I've spent a career working with engineers, but when that is *all* we value, it's a sad day.
By the way, mathematics is a liberal art, as is economics.
Last edited by maciesmom; 04-06-2019 at 08:44 AM..
The idea of which is actually contrary to the OP. "Back in the day" a University education implied well-rounded, scholarly thinking; the ability to research and communicate thoughtfully. Current arguments such as the above seem to want to limit the idea of university education and instead provide what amounts to STEM job training academies. I have no issue with STEM at all - I've spent a career working with engineers, but when that is *all* we value, it's a sad day.
I don't disagree with you. Today, in many people's minds, if there isn't a direct path from degree to job, such as engineering, nursing, business, then education is a waste of time and money.
When our daughter was in college, people would ask what's her major and we'd tell them, they respond with "oh wow, that's a hard subject. She'll get a good job with that." Which she did. On the other hand when we tell them what our son is studying, they ask "what's he going to do with that?" Sometime I play a little game with them and say "he plans on law school" or "he plans to be a teacher" or something else just to see the differences in their reaction.
You are quite correct on how people's views on a college education have changed. Probably because today it is so expensive people have to do the ROI. Example, even with scholarships, what we could afford, and her working part time, our daughter still graduated with close to $60K in debt. We played out the ROI and debt calculations heavily for all her college options before she applied.
I don't disagree with you. Today, in many people's minds, if there isn't a direct path from degree to job, such as engineering, nursing, business, then education is a waste of time and money.
When our daughter was in college, people would ask what's her major and we'd tell them, they respond with "oh wow, that's a hard subject. She'll get a good job with that." Which she did. On the other hand when we tell them what our son is studying, they ask "what's he going to do with that?" Sometime I play a little game with them and say "he plans on law school" or "he plans to be a teacher" or something else just to see the differences in their reaction.
You are quite correct on how people's views on a college education have changed. Probably because today it is so expensive people have to do the ROI. Example, even with scholarships, what we could afford, and her working part time, our daughter still graduated with close to $60K in debt. We played out the ROI and debt calculations heavily for all her college options before she applied.
People pursue individual fields of study for a variety of reasons. I have no problem at all with considering ROI in that decision making process. I DO take issue with attempts to limit fields of study available for others to pursue simply because some can only find value in things that personally interest them or that they believe to be easily marketable.
So you're saying you 'lost the argument' when you were the first poster to inject race into this thread (post#9)?
Classic. You bring up race, then carp over someone else playing 'the race card'.
I just provided a factual account of how many universities determine who gets admitted. The fact that it's largely race-based doesn't make me a racist. Learn the difference.
Test them, eliminate all college remedial classes (paid for, but no credit) and return them to the high schools that graduated them, prematurely, to fix their problem. It would expose the sham to increase high school graduation rates.
I think it's just fine for colleges to offer remedial courses if they want to. Many older adults return to college and have forgotten things they learned from 20, 30 or more years ago.
We also don't need adults returning to high school to learn alongside teenagers.
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.
