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.
Well, even though you're trying to set a logic trap, I'll play. What kind of college am I president of and what is the student body (IE customer base) it serves? Is it a state flagship? Is it aiming for a top 25 US News or to be a top STEM university? Land Grant? Or is it a small LAC with a big fund base or struggling to survive?
Does it matter? You said arts and humanities are necessary for a well rounded education. Isn't that what all of them should do regardless of type?
Specifically, regional masters university. Part of the state university system, not the flagship.
Quote:
Is it a powerhouse football school or are sports secondary?
No.
Quote:
My job isn't to promote or demote any specific major, degree program, department, or college (for a university). It's to best serve the target customer base, maintain and upgrade facilities, and oversee a large and diverse staff.
As the president you make final decisions on whether a program stays or goes. You can choose to start or end programs. Do you make decision based on what is popular, or what is acadenically sound?
Quote:
The overall departments aren't going to die, because as I said earlier, a good, well rounded education is essential to be an educated person, regardless of major. There will still be grammar, literature, history, geography, some level of classics, art, etc. What there may not be is pet project degree programs that don't provide a return on investment to the university.
If enrollment is all I care about, then I am going to make programs that study things students are interested in at the moment. Is that really what you want to promote? To cater to the vogue fashions and the preferences of the current 18 year olds?
As noted psychology is popular because of TV shows. Youbknow what's not popular? Thngs that are hard are less popular, like languages. Languages are the first thing cut at most schools. They're cutting things that are rigorous. Not fluff. Fluff fills seats. Easy As, easy credit.
I hope you'll be happy with a lot of half assed CIS, business, and Psych majors who don't even know what democracy is because philosophy and political science were cut everywhere. If you thought Trump was bad you ain't seen nuthin yet once that ignorance trickles up.
Quote:
If I were a legislator, my vote to increase or decrease funding wouldn't be based on the humanities department. That's really a silly question. It would be based on how well the university is serving the needs of the state vs the overall needs to balance a state budget at the least impact to the taxpayers.
So you don't care about the quality of the programs, then? Or whether the colleges are fulfilling the missions they themselves write. Only what they cost?
This is how Illinois loses top talent to Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan, and Oklahoma and Arkansas lose talent to Texas. Your state's best high school grads are going out of state, never to return. You did your state a real solid.
It's my belief, if colleges are not going to fulfull the missions of their founders, they should close.
Last edited by redguard57; 06-05-2021 at 09:44 PM..
Westender’s comment was filled with political buzzwords. LGBT persons and Asians are the current poster children for discrimination, even more so than blacks. I completely agree with you about the decline across the US, but choosing to focus on the Midwest was another giveaway as to Westender’s agenda. I lived on the the East Coast for 20 years and the West Coast for 20 years. Both coasts have their fair share of “hicks”, of the poor and the uneducated, as much as the middle of the country does.
It is the intellectuals on the coasts who like to slam the “Midwest” and Midwestern farmers, and declare that everyone from Iowa is ignorant and backwards and shocked to death if they ever see a gay person, a non-white person, or a transgender person. I have read tons of comments like this on CD. (No, I do not live in Iowa). Furthermore, most of the commentators on CD mocking those from the Midwest have spent no great amount of time there and are basing their impressions on having “driven through” a few times.
I have encountered more ignorance, poor education, and general bigotry on the East Coast than I ever have in the Midwest.
Learning to treat people with respect does not come from a college education. It comes from a good and loving home, from proper parenting. Plenty of college educated people are arrogant you-know-what’s, and plenty of non college educated people are kind, considerate and compassionate. Nor does bigotry confine itself to small towns and rural areas Bigotry exists in NYC and LA and everywhere in between.
Making such overreaching assumptions about the a person’s character based on education and their geographical background is extremely disturbing.
Maybe you should stop being so judgmental and take people on a one to one basis.
Won't let me give you any more rep points. These negative, essentially racist stereotypes about the Midwest and South come from those who pat themselves on the back about how open, and accepting, and non judgmental they are. Just like the many people I've worked with that came here on business and flat out commented to locals about "living in Hooterville." They wouldn't say things like that to anyone else but it's ok to talk about rural life that way.
Well, I guess I'm gonna have to mosey on out to the back 40 and dig me up a mason jar of shine and lay around in my overalls. Either that or hope in the General Lee and go playing tag with Roscoe and Enos.
It’s completely ridiculous to say people who don’t go to college aren’t ambitious. My FIL didn’t go to college and he is a multi-millionaire. Someone upthread said, and I agree, we need more paths to the middle class in this country. However, I would go further and rephrase that to we need more paths to success in this country.
I further take exception to PP’s blanket characterization of rural mid-westerners as bigoted and uneducated. I think he found what he was looking for, and as an outsider traveling through, he has no real basis to make such claims.
LaBron James never went to college, and Bill Gates didn't graduate from college. Extraordinarily talented people can find extraordinary success even when they break "the rules" but their paths to success aren't realistic blueprints for career success for most people. Opportunities for non-credentialed people (ie, without college degrees or appropriate certificates or licenses) are going to continue to shrink as artificial intelligence and robotics continue to progress, resulting in machines doing more and more repetitive work that people once did. This became inevitable when the Luddites failed to stop the Industrial Revolution back in early 1800s.
LaBron James never went to college, and Bill Gates didn't graduate from college. Extraordinarily talented people can find extraordinary success even when they break "the rules" but their paths to success aren't realistic blueprints for career success for most people. Opportunities for non-credentialed people (ie, without college degrees or appropriate certificates or licenses) are going to continue to shrink as artificial intelligence and robotics continue to progress, resulting in machines doing more and more repetitive work that people once did. This became inevitable when the Luddites failed to stop the Industrial Revolution back in early 1800s.
This is an excellent point. There are people who defy rules and convention and achieve overwhelming success without a college degree. However, they are exceptions. They are almost always people who possess some extraordinary intrinsic talent. Bill Gates was literally solving problems for the local electric power company when he was in high school. Pro sports fits into a category of its own. I've often wondered if its really been destructive to minority people in the sense that it holds out this illusion of wealth and success when in reality only a handful out of millions of people will find a successful career.
The path forward for most of us is the type of training and education available in college. The puzzle is to make that training available and affordable to as many people as possible.
LaBron James never went to college, and Bill Gates didn't graduate from college. Extraordinarily talented people can find extraordinary success even when they break "the rules" but their paths to success aren't realistic blueprints for career success for most people. Opportunities for non-credentialed people (ie, without college degrees or appropriate certificates or licenses) are going to continue to shrink as artificial intelligence and robotics continue to progress, resulting in machines doing more and more repetitive work that people once did. This became inevitable when the Luddites failed to stop the Industrial Revolution back in early 1800s.
I don’t disagree with this at all.
What I object to is blanket statements that non-college educated people are ignorant, unambitious, prejudiced, bigoted, racist, and so forth.
I do wonder if we are at a bit of a tipping point with undergraduate enrollment; in 2020, undergraduate enrollment declined by roughly 3.5%. This may be due to exorbitant cost, the prevalence of online learning due to pandemic era protocols, burn out, being paid to stay home, etc.? Time will tell.
Incidentally, the people I know whose children are foregoing college are not doing repetitive mechanical work. One young man is a firefighter and EMT (I guess you could say he is licensed; I am referring primarily to 4 year degrees); I know several going straight into the military; my cousin’s daughter got a perfect score on the SAT, did a culinary course instead of college, and opened her own bakery. I don’t see these as the often touted plumber/electrician/welder jobs usually referred to here.
Honestly I think more people could benefit from technical colleges and technical training, but get caught up in the 4 year college mythology/sales pitch. I don’t think this country needs more lawyers, if that makes sense. There is a great deal between the plumber stereotype and the lawyer stereotype.
Last edited by calgirlinnc; 06-05-2021 at 10:21 PM..
What I object to is blanket statements that non-college educated people are ignorant, unambitious, prejudiced, bigoted, racist, and so forth.
I do wonder if we are at a bit of a tipping point with undergraduate enrollment; in 2020, undergraduate enrollment declined by roughly 3.5%. This may be due to exorbitant cost, the prevalence of online learning due to pandemic era protocols, burn out, being paid to stay home, etc.? Time will tell.
Incidentally, the people I know whose children are foregoing college are not doing repetitive mechanical work. One young man is a firefighter and EMT (I guess you could say he is licensed; I am referring primarily to 4 year degrees); I know several going straight into the military; my cousin’s daughter got a perfect score on the SAT, did a culinary course instead of college, and opened her own bakery. I don’t see these as the often touted plumber/electrician/welder jobs usually referred to here.
Honestly I think more people could benefit from technical colleges and technical training, but get caught up in the 4 year college mythology/sales pitch. I don’t think this country needs more lawyers, if that makes sense. There is a great deal between the plumber stereotype and the lawyer stereotype.
I would hope this trend continues until we get to where we need to be: certain careers requiring the traditional college education, trades going off to trade school or apprenticeships, some deferring college in favor of military service for a career or short stint prior to using the college benefit, unskilled labor going into unskilled labor, entrepreneurs gathering what they need to make their next move.
There is a path for everyone, and if we ever want to fix the college cost and debt problem, we need to acknowledge that everyone's place isn't a 4-year university at the age of 18.
I would hope this trend continues until we get to where we need to be: certain careers requiring the traditional college education, trades going off to trade school or apprenticeships, some deferring college in favor of military service for a career or short stint prior to using the college benefit, unskilled labor going into unskilled labor, entrepreneurs gathering what they need to make their next move.
There is a path for everyone, and if we ever want to fix the college cost and debt problem, we need to acknowledge that everyone's place isn't a 4-year university at the age of 18.
Absolutely! I think this becomes clear when looking at college dropout rates:
56% of students at 4 year schools drop out within 6 years. Only 41% of undergraduates earn their degree in 4 years.
43% of students at 2 year schools drop out and never even get an associates degree. Only 5% complete their coursework in 2 years.
The overwhelming cost and the disconnect between high school academics and college academics contribute to these abysmal numbers. The worst is all those who don’t graduate and are still saddled with debt.
So even when students make it to college, they frequently don’t make it through college...and that is a serious problem as well. Either it was not the right choice for them to begin with, or they are inadequately supported at college (emotionally, psychologically, academically, financially...)
The overwhelming cost and the disconnect between high school academics and college academics contribute to these abysmal numbers. The worst is all those who don’t graduate and are still saddled with debt.
So even when students make it to college, they frequently don’t make it through college...and that is a serious problem as well. Either it was not the right choice for them to begin with, or they are inadequately supported at college (emotionally, psychologically, academically, financially...)
It's an interesting stat, that gradiation rate. Especially when you consider the massive grade inflation. Colleges are giving students As just for showing up but they STILL can't get the students to finish.
That tells me the problems are the supports you mentioned, not really their intelligence or ability. Colleges can give academic and financial support but they can't do much about whatever emotional and psychological problems they've got.
Unfortunately, most of your links were behind a wall so I couldn't read them. The one for Western Oregon pretty much follows what I say below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
Does it matter? You said arts and humanities are necessary for a well rounded education. Isn't that what all of them should do regardless of type?
Specifically, regional masters university. Part of the state university system, not the flagship.
No.
As the president you make final decisions on whether a program stays or goes. You can choose to start or end programs. Do you make decision based on what is popular, or what is acadenically sound?
Yes, the size and focus does matter. That governs a lot of resources and support within the legislature and with voters. More students taking a degree program = more support for that program which allows that department to support others better.
Ok. So basically a middlin' school serving a small, middle of the road student body. Perhaps many first gen college students. No specific academic focus to the school. Often in competition to the state flagship in the legislature and state Reagents/Commission/whatever governance structure that state has. Primary market is in state and regional students. May have grown from a "Normal School." At least the good part is, unlike in your original question, I don't have to worry about reputation since such a school doesn't have one anyway.
Now to the specific question. I don't make decisions of that magnitude off the cuff. There will be significant analysis beforehand. That has to consider academic needs as part of a well rounded degree for all students, student demand for courses in that field beyond those, cost of sustaining said department, alternative sources within the state for those who may want said degree, and a lot of secondary issues. All balanced against the available budget.
Ultimately the budget drives things. Money doesn't appear out of thin air.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
They very well will cut those. Here's two that are elininating history, philosophy, etc...
If enrollment is all I care about, then I am going to make programs that study things students are interested in at the moment. Is that really what you want to promote? To cater to the vogue fashions and the preferences of the current 18 year olds?
As noted psychology is popular because of TV shows. Youbknow what's not popular? Thngs that are hard are less popular, like languages. Languages are the first thing cut at most schools. They're cutting things that are rigorous. Not fluff. Fluff fills seats. Easy As, easy credit.
.
As noted above, those links, other than Western Oregon, were behind walls so I couldn't read them. For WO, it says they are eliminating anthropology, philosophy, geography, and Master's in information systems, and music. Doesn't say whether those departments are going away or just the degrees. It takes a lot more faculty and resources to offer degrees than it does to offer supporting core coursework to other degrees. It's what I would do (as noted above)
You must work at a really low end school if all the students care about is the easiest courses. From where I went to school, where my kids went, and where the people I hire went, the vast majority aren't there for "fluff." Fluff wouldn't fill seats with those student bodies; fluff would drive them away. Most of those students were there to learn something and they came for the hard courses.
If I'm president of a school whose student body focused on fluff, I either need to raise the bar for admittance or go to the state and recommend the school be shut down because it isn't serving a true need.
Frankly, if enrollment is all I care about, I'm going to raise the bar, not lower it. I'm going to get rid of the fluff. And install for hard degree programs that actually lead to jobs post college. As a student, I have better things to do with my time than fluff courses. They waste my time and money, increase my cost of attendance, and delay graduation by a year. So thank you to colleges that cut fluff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
I hope you'll be happy with a lot of half assed CIS, business, and Psych majors who don't even know what democracy is because philosophy and political science were cut everywhere. If you thought Trump was bad you ain't seen nuthin yet once that ignorance trickles up.
So you don't care about the quality of the programs, then? Or whether the colleges are fulfilling the missions they themselves write. Only what they cost?
This is how Illinois loses top talent to Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan, and Oklahoma and Arkansas lose talent to Texas. Your state's best high school grads are going out of state, never to return. You did your state a real solid.
It's my belief, if colleges are not going to fulfull the missions of their founders, they should close.
You've jumped to so many conclusions based on things I didn't say, I'm not sure where to start with a response. Yes I care about quality. I also care about cost. Doesn't matter what the quality is if no one can afford it. And frankly, there are a lot of courses I wouldn't define as quality but as fluff as you would call it. I'd be happy for colleges to focus on their intended mission.
The overwhelming cost and the disconnect between high school academics and college academics contribute to these abysmal numbers. The worst is all those who don’t graduate and are still saddled with debt.
So even when students make it to college, they frequently don’t make it through college...and that is a serious problem as well. Either it was not the right choice for them to begin with, or they are inadequately supported at college (emotionally, psychologically, academically, financially...)
A couple of things.
1) High school education is failing.
Quote:
A new report from the ACT – the organization that provides the eponymous U.S. college admissions test– demonstrates that the percentage of students meeting college-ready benchmarks has dropped in all subject areas tested. In fact, a shocking 35% of U.S. high school graduates met none of the four ACT benchmarks that determine college readiness across all subjects.
According to ACT, the decline was most precipitous in math. In fact, only 40% of 2018 graduates taking the ACT met a benchmark indicating they could succeed in a first-year college algebra class. That is down from 41% in 2017 and a high of 46% in 2012.
3) College students are not as independent as previous generations.
In my generation, during the summer, we were gone all day didn't return until dinner. Our parents had no idea of where we were. There were no cell phones or keeping in touch. We were expected to get summer jobs. We have chores and responsibilities at home. If we were bullied, we were told "sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never harm me." Believe me when I say it wasn't great, but we were expected to have a thicker skin. IMHO, we had higher graduation rates because we had more grit.
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.
