

Glenn Reynolds: Higher education's bubble is about to burst - cwan
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Higher-education_s-bubble-is-about-to-burst-95639354.html

======
roboneal
We've practically made "attending college" a universal expectation for every
American high school graduate.

Realistic options such as trade schools, community colleges, military
enlistment, and good old fashion "on the job training" need to be valid FIRST
choices of most high school grads!

Not some fall back plan after dropping out of college with lingering debt and
2,3, and 4 lost earning years.

~~~
stretchwithme
amen. I think if government would stop subsidizing college and stop
brainwashing students on this all through high school, I think they'd be much
more likely to make the choices that suit their circumstances. And private
funding mechanisms wouldn't fund unrealistic choices nearly as often as public
mechanisms.

------
mnemonicsloth
Here's a YouTube channel for the Indian Institute of Technology. You can get a
mostly complete engineering education up to the early graduate level by
watching these videos and downloading problem/solution sets from MIT's OCW.

<http://www.youtube.com/user/nptelhrd>

Then there's github. Portfolios > resumes and everyone knows it.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out where we're headed.

~~~
scott_s
I think this underestimates the value of having someone who will answer your
questions.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
1\. Professors, TAs, and graders aren't judged on their ability to answer
students' questions. They are judged on many other things: attending
conferences, publishing research, writing their dissertation. They prioritize
accordingly.

2\. The courses with the highest attrition rates are always the 100-level
weed-out classes taught in 500-person lecture halls. At my school, a 40% drop
rate in Intro CS was normal and 60% wasn't unheard-of. Were the drop-outs all
too dumb to learn programming? Did some of them have trouble getting their
questions answered? Nobody lost as much sleep over those questions as they did
over their thesis defense. See #1.

3\. Most student questions are about BS that's irrelevant to learning. What's
on the test? Do we have to read all of chapter 7? Why did you take ten points
off on problem four? What font and spacing do you want me to use on the write-
up?

I agree that formal education can change a student's world when it's done
right. I don't think our current system rises to meet that standard very
often. In part that's because it's easy to ignore real problems by thinking
about the ideal. University education can be better than it is now, and
competition from less formal learning can help it get there.

~~~
Tangurena
> _Were the drop-outs all too dumb to learn programming?_

Having tutored some of them - who all changed majors after the "flunk out"
courses - the answer is a qualified _Yes_. I wouldn't call them stupid, but I
would say that they just couldn't "get it". Just like some programmers cannot
"get" pointers, many people just don't have what it takes to program.

Many people wanted to be a developer because it pays well. When they got into
the introductory classes, they found that they didn't "get" it - and for the
folks who dropped the class and changed majors - they _could not get it._ I'm
not saying that programming is some magical career where rainbows flow out of
unicorn's rear ends.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
You're willing to question the ability of these students by saying "they
couldn't get it."

You haven't examined the possibility that you couldn't teach it.

I don't want to question your intelligence here. I'm sincerely interested in
your answer to the question: how do you know it's the one and not the other?

Here's some historical perspective. Before he became "The Great," Alexander's
father Philip arranged for the young man to be tutored by Aristotle, who was
already a world-famous academic. Philip was famous as well, for having his
political enemies flayed or boiled alive. Imagine Aristotle saying to Philip,
"Your son Alexander is a very bright young man. If he would only apply
himself. B-"

------
tigerthink
Since education can't be resold, there isn't going to be the sort of bursting
bubble you see in markets for other goods.

Let's say what the article predicts comes to pass and the demand for degrees
goes down. If degrees could be resold, then college graduates would start
selling theirs. You might get a proverbial "bursting bubble" as more and more
graduates started panicking and selling their degrees before they lost all
their value.

But since graduates can't resell their degrees, we're more likely to see a
gradual decline in their price.

~~~
krallja
Yeah, the first question I have after reading this article is "how do I short
higher education"?

~~~
anthonyb
A college saving fund: "Pay us $x/month for the duration of your child's high
school education, and we'll fund them throughout their college degree."

You just have to make x low enough that people will sign up, but high enough
that you make money. Of course, if the bubble doesn't burst, you get it "in
the shorts"...

------
muerdeme
The social stigma associated with vocational and trade schools needs to end,
and the university "experience" is BS. I imagine a big opportunity to fill the
social needs of young people that don't go to college (even beyond selling
them alcohol). Businesses that do a good job of matching people socially
(maybe IM sports teams not associated with universities) would go a long way
to dispelling the idea that you have to pay $50k/year for the intangible
college experience.

~~~
lsc
but a big part of the point of college is to perpetuate the class system.

so, uh, yeah. Trade school is great, if you just want to make money. but your
earning power has little to do with your 'class' I think; in many ways,
getting a degree that doesn't qualify you for a job is conspicuous
consumption.

What could be more conspicuous than spending a hundred grand on "self
actualization" - the only outward effect basically being more interesting at
parties?

~~~
fuzzmeister
The outward effect of a liberal arts education is being a more knowledgeable
citizen, better able to think about the world around you. I'd say that goes a
bit beyond conversations over cocktails.

~~~
lsc
> The outward effect of a liberal arts education is being a more knowledgeable
> citizen, better able to think about the world around you.

be concrete. You are still speaking of internal changes; and I'm asking, "what
does that mean?" - how does a person's behaviour improve after getting, say,
an art history degree?

~~~
derefr
More knowledge means more neural connectivity, which means a greater level of
creativity (as long as you also develop critical thought at the same pace.)

For art, you need creativity. People tell artists that "the best way to
paint/write/draw/act/sculpt better is to go out and experience the world."
Well, in the same way a degree in the sciences offers a good topical coverage
of the _knowledge_ the world has to offer, a liberal arts degree offers a
pretty good topical coverage of the _experiences_ the world has to offer, so
you can decide what to dig into. They're useful from that perspective.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Great if you can afford it. Not useful for making money, usually.

------
zach
I actually think it isn't too overblown to hold up a college degree as
something that, like homeownership, has been touted as the American dream and
become a status item to be worshipped and sacrificed to. Our country's
capitalistic nature seems to end up exploding every cultural norm that becomes
too widely subscribed to. Have you seen how much weddings cost?

For one thing, I think there are a lot of bubble-like indicators out there.
Just this week Forbes has a story on a charter school, Think College Now,
which takes the universal attendance expectation to a new level. This is an
elementary school, an _elementary school_ , filled with college-is-for-
everyone cheerleading like signs asking "Am I making college-bound choices
today?"

[http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0607/education-tcn-
teamwor...](http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0607/education-tcn-teamwork-
oakland-california-think-college.html)

Yes, it's gotten to a point where we've invented the college-prep public
elementary school. I admit I'm partisan (I'm one of probably very few non-
college-graduate Jeopardy! champions), yet isn't this substantial evidence
that the attitude toward college education has become unglued from
rationality?

------
kadavy
I did get an undergraduate degree. But when it came time to consider getting a
graduate degree in business, I made the following comparison:

a) I could spend two years of my life, and over $100,000 to learn business,
then graduate in debt, but without actual experience running a business.

b) I could start my own business, learn what I can from books in the public
library, and other entrepreneurs; and within two years, have way more
experience running a business than if I had gone to Business school. I would
also spend less (though still quite a bit) of money.

I chose option b, starting with a year of wandering from cafe to cafe in SF,
experimenting with various projects, and meeting other entrepreneurs. Three
years later, my business is paying my bills, I've learned a ton, and I feel I
have a very strong network.

Option b might not work for everyone, but I feel it was the right choice for
me. I'm not sure I would have done the same thing with an undergraduate degree
though.

------
cpr
Matthew Crawford has some original thinking related to this topic, in his book
"Shop Class as Soulcraft":

<http://www.matthewbcrawford.com/>

------
cma
Any interesting ways to "short" higher education tuitions?

~~~
chancho
Start buying up student loan debt and pooling them into Student Loan Backed
Securities (SLBS). Tranche and rate them based on US News & World Report
school rankings, sell these CDOs to wealthy institutional investors worldwide,
then have your business partner short the shit out of them.

~~~
arethuza
You mean SLABS?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset-
backed_security#Student_l...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset-
backed_security#Student_loans)

------
HistoryInAction
For more on this bubble, I recommend the Commonfund's HEPI site, which has a
lot of information about the breakdown of cost increases in higher education
(much is from general increases in health insurance costs, though the 2007
energy spike affected things significantly as well). The link is here:
[http://www.commonfund.org/CommonfundInstitute/HEPI/Pages/def...](http://www.commonfund.org/CommonfundInstitute/HEPI/Pages/default.aspx)

------
spamizbad
I'm inclined to think this bubble will be limited to expensive private
colleges that lack significant clout. State schools and community colleges
will remain attractive options for students due to cost factors, and private
universities with excellent reputations will continue to attract bright
students. But any school that isn't affordable or famous will may see a
decline in applications when this bubble bursts.

------
joe_the_user
I think that bubbles first came really strong to my attention in 2002, after
the dot-com crash.

I watched the housing bubble welling up massively. Reading Doug Noland of
prudenbear.com and other commentators, there was no great mystery about it
unless you believed some patently false reasoning ("housing price always good
up...").

The thing is that bubbles have a remarkable staying power. The housing bubble
only _partially_ burst in 2008 and that was at least five years from the
start. From health care, to education, to Chinese capital-spending, to
housing-again, it seems like the many bubbles currently sustaining the peudo-
recovery are all about to burst. But I'd add a "fudge-factor" of a couple year
_still_. Plus, that brings us to 2012, a auspicious year for the end of the
world.

~~~
lsc
I like to tell the story of how in 1998, when I got my first programming job,
I decided not to buy a house because I thought prices were irrationally high,
and that it was a bubble. I could have bought, too. Obviously, even if I rode
it through the current crash, I'd be way in the black today.

------
sliverstorm
Maybe I need to change my thought pattern, but alarmist headlines immediately
pre-dispose me to be unreceptive to the idea the author is trying to convey...

------
tman
"Second, it may provide a credential that employers want, not because it
represents actual skills, but because it's a weeding tool that doesn't produce
civil-rights suits as, say, IQ tests might."

4 years out of a young person's life when a 2-hour test works better for
predicting job performance is sort of awful, isn't it?.

~~~
chrischen
To be fair IQ tests would probably be weighted less in relation to other
things on the resume than a college degree is relative to other things on the
resume.

But since a college degree is perceived as a more raw evaluation of
skill/potential skill than an IQ test (which is more speculative as it only
evaluates potential and evaluated in a short test), the degree is often given
too much weight.

IQ test: speculative evaluation of potential but requires virtually no
money/wealth to master. College degree: can/must be bought with (sufficient)
money or (semi) inherited (in the case of legacy admissions). Both are bad.

------
looprecur
I really don't think anyone can predict when this bubble bursts. There are too
many political and cultural factors involved. Also, as employment prospects
decline and remain dismal throughout our second "lost decade", I tend to
predict more shelter-seeking "students", debts be damned.

People used to think of financial insolvency and bankruptcy as a shameful
failure. Not any more. There's a widespread sense that money isn't real and
that repayment of debt is somewhat voluntary. This is why people were willing
to buy houses at prices of 20-30 years' after-tax income during the bubble.
Also, the fact that unexpected medical problems (and insurance malfeasance)
can make virtually _anyone_ bankrupt eradicates the association of insolvency
with personal failure; now it's something that can happen to anyone, like a
lightning bolt from the sky.

The result is that, absent regulation, people will continue to take out loans
for unaffordable education costs, default on their student debts (which are
nondischargeable, but this doesn't prevent _default_ , only discharge in
bankruptcy) and maybe have their wages garnished a bit. So we have debt
bondage, but when the alternative is economic nonexistence (Wal-Mart job) this
starts to look pretty good. At least the guy in the low-end office job, with
20% of his meager pay garnished, can sit down at work.

TL;DR version: in other words, as things are now, if college tuition cost
$100,000 per year and loan companies were willing to offer it, people would
still buy it, future insolvency be damned. If you take this offer, you have
hope of an eventual regulatory change ("jubilee") that forgives or at least
makes dischargeable student debt. If you don't, you face economic
obliteration, unless you're visibly (at 18) in the top 0.01% of your age group
in something (computer programming, acting, athletics).

------
coned88
Even though many of you are anti-education there are still many fields and
disciplines where one must go to University. Engineers, lawyers, Doctors,
Managers, Accountants, Teachers, etc all need some form of higher education.

No employer in their right mind would hire anybody in any of those disciplines
without the proper education, it simply does not happen. It used to happen in
engineering, but those cases were very rare and now it doesn't anymore.

Then we move onto programing. Well, sure one could learn all of this stuff
themselves. But, can a self taught programmer really say he knows all of the
math to program physics modeling software? What about working on programs like
autocad and pro engineering. What about MatLab and Mathematica.

Huge fields of projects, you are essentially negating yourself from, solely
because you have no proven ability to do higher math and likely haven't put in
the years of time it takes to become good at that math.

