
The college-for-all model isn't working - austenallred
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-jacoby-college-vocational-training-cte-20131203,3,898619.story#axzz2mRF9jXQa
======
ignostic
It's a joke among engineers that you need to graduate from college so that you
can start learning. My college experience (non-technical bachelors) was just a
joke, period - high school 2.0. Still, I wouldn't have the good job I do now
if I hadn't completed my degree.

We keep running into this problem where employers think college degrees are
more valuable than they probably are. Part of that is impressed culturally,
but more than anything we lack better methods of certification in most jobs.
We need certification that matters, is widely accepted, and that employers
actually trust. It has to be marketed well, and it has to actually produce
graduates with up-to-date skills. It's not easy, especially in fields where
curriculum must change yearly.

Underlying all of this is a larger, unavoidable change taking place: the
disappearance of unskilled work. Computers and machines are slowly taking over
every unskilled job, starting at the least skilled and moving upwards to
things we used to think of as skilled labor. Taxi drivers and factory workers
will hardly exist in 10 years. Construction workers will only supervise
machines in our lifetimes. Unless you want to work in a low-paying retail job
for the rest of your life, you need to get a degree so you can work your way
up some corporate ladder - or so the thinking goes.

~~~
mortenjorck
A major benefit of college is a baseline of domain knowledge that will serve
you in your professional career, but indeed, that’s also a major benefit of a
technical program. The real disconnect is that college is _also_ (or at least
is supposed to be, or has traditionally been) a schooling in the liberal arts.
Four years spent learning to think critically about society and culture as
well as one's area of specialization, and to express oneself in the
marketplace of ideas.

Which is just something many people don’t really care to do. And that’s fine.
The problem is trying to _get_ everyone interested in it, denying the fact
that many lack interest and aptitude, and then diluting the experience for
everyone while saddling the next generation with decades’ worth of debt.

~~~
WalterBright
I've always wondered about the reputed benefit of learning to think critically
from a liberal arts education.

For example, with engineering, an airplane built from your design flies or
does not. There's no pretending it flies when it doesn't. Reality cannot be
fooled, so one is forced to learn to think critically.

But with liberal arts, the same person can argue both points of view with
equal facility - how does one tell which is correct? What good is being able
to criticize without a mechanism for determining the correct way? Or even a
better way?

~~~
arebop
The liberal arts mechanism for ordering arguments is democracy!

The idea of liberal arts is that their study enables one to participate as a
full-fledged member of society. Thinking critically about arguments that
concern society requires not just checking the validity but also the soundness
of an argument. I suppose you really need some understanding of culture and
history to make up your mind about many issues of importance to the society in
which you live.

~~~
WalterBright
Re: validity of the argument.

In engineering, you learn to discern logical fallacies rather quickly.
Insulting your computer (ad hom) won't fix bugs in your programs. Insults in
issues of importance to society are the norm, even going to the highest
levels.

As a lawyer friend told me once:

1\. if justice is on your side, argue justice

2\. if the law is on your side, argue the law

3\. if neither the law nor justice is on your side, insult the other side

~~~
alexeisadeski3
"When the facts are with you, pound the facts. When the law is with you, pound
the law. When neither are with you, pound the table and scream like hell."

------
jellicle
For those who aren't aware, this is an op-ed (meaning the newspaper doesn't
stand behind any of the facts claimed) from a right-wing Koch brothers
organization.

Several commenters have already noted that the fundamental "fact" here, that
certain vocations are experiencing major shortages (the "skills mismatch"
claim) is completely false, which it is. The Great Recession stretches across
all job fields and locations in the United States and beyond.

Nutshell: this op-ed is from someone who hates broad-based education and wants
to bring in a sort of reverse work-training system: you pay them for the
privilege of working at various companies, and we call it modern vocational
education.

~~~
nsxwolf
Great that you noticed it's an op-ed by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but,
is the college for all model working?

~~~
nickthemagicman
The other option is college for the rich. So it's working better than the
alternative.

~~~
pc86
What about college for those who want a career that demands a degree
(realistically, not according to HR)? The discussion here should be about
under what circumstances college is meaningful and appropriate, not whether
author's world view. If the article is wrong, dispute it with sources.

~~~
scoofy
Almost all careers are either certification-based or they create an arms race
of education. When you have an arms race everyone has an incentive to get a
degree but perhaps not everyone with said degree will get a job. Resources are
wasted, but there isn't any incentive to stop the system from perpetuating
itself. When you have a surplus of unemployed-educated people, why not hire
over-educated workers? This reenforces the need for a degree.

Every time I see people saying "not everyone should go to college" during a
non-economic-boom I wish they would start teaching game theory to high
schoolers.

------
salient
Perhaps, but what's definitely not working is the guaranteed loans from
governments, which gives universities access to virtually unlimited funds. If
the government wouldn't give loans for college, US tuitions would probably be
10x less, just like they are even in the most expensive universities in Europe
or elsewhere.

~~~
Trezoid
I strongly disagree. In the Australian system everyone gets a higher education
loan from the government(with interest locked to the inflation rate and
repayment only required if and when taxable income passes a certain
threshold), and yet our tuition rates are much lower than in the US.

For example, I just finished a Bachelors degree in a STEM field at a
relatively middle of the road university and my total education debt comes out
just short of $30k.

------
patja
A discussion on an EconTalk podcast about trends in college education
resonated with me. They discussed college as being an extended adolescence for
many students: today many students treat it as an expensive way to find one's
way in the world and learn about oneself whereas going back 20 or 30 years it
was more about improving your employment prospects. They cited as evidence the
doubling of psychology undergraduate degrees (nice for learning about oneself,
but lacking a corresponding increase in jobs available) granted over a period
where STEM degrees remained flat. A similar doubling in performing and visual
arts degrees was another trend they contrasted to STEM degree popularity
stagnation. The podcast is at
[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/12/tabarrok_on_inn.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/12/tabarrok_on_inn.html)

------
ebbv
What college for all model?

What we have is not college for all, not even close. We have capitalistic
college education; where it costs as much as the market will bear, and the
ability of the market is distorted by massive student loans which kids are
told they have to get as it is an investment into their future.

College for all would be if college was free to every high school graduate,
and costs were kept down by universities being run like places of learning and
not capitalistic enterprises focused on football tickets and massive stadiums.

~~~
bkmartin
I agree with you in principle, but please choose another target other than
football tickets and massive stadiums. Most massive stadiums are filled with
paying customers whose money is then used to fund all the other athletics
programs that don't charge money because too few people would actually pay to
watch them.

------
mrxd
It's hard for me to take this article seriously with so many falsehoods.
Shortage of STEM workers? Debunked: [http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-
work/education/the-stem-crisis-i...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-
work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth)

College costs out of control? Only because states are cutting subsidies for
higher education and forcing students to pay more.

That said, towards the end there are some good points. It could be argued that
there's a public interest in promoting higher education because its necessary
for a functional democracy. But if the public abandons this goal and higher
education is only for job preparation, then why should the state be involved
at all? In that case, state tuition subsidies are really corporate welfare.

Although on-the-job training and apprenticeships are more effective for many
jobs, that would mean employers have to shoulder the cost rather than the
state.

~~~
roc
Tuition _couldn 't_ skyrocket if students had no means to pay it. The enabler
in this situation, is the disconnect between the availability of financing and
the product being financed.

You can't get a $60,000 loan for a $20,000 car, but you can absolutely rack up
that much (or more) in college debt, for an education indistinguishable from
one at a third of the cost.

With that kind of distortion in the market, why would anyone be surprised at
rising tuition?

~~~
mrxd
If your explanation were true, we should expect tuition to immediately shift
to students when federal loans and grants became available in 1965.

But in fact, the data shows that state tuition subsidies for public 4-year
colleges have declined slowly, except in the years following recessions when
states cut their budgets. These years show much more dramatic declines. This
is consistent with my hypothesis that state budget cuts are the primary driver
of tuition increases.

It's possible that your point still holds, that the availability of federal
loans made it easier for states to cut tuition subsidies. But that's a change
in the politics of the issue, not a market distortion. Without federal aid,
politicians would be more vulnerable to the charge that they're making college
less accessible.

Federal loans have obviously not created a tuition bubble, for the simple
reason that the _cost_ of a public 4-year education (the price charged to
states + students) is essentially unchanged over the last 25 years.

The story may be different for for-profit colleges. If you want to argue that
there's a market distortion there, essentially that for-profit colleges are
gouging students and the government, I could easily be persuaded. But since
only 10% of students are enrolled in these schools, they're unlikely to be the
main source of increasing student debt.

~~~
chongli
_This is consistent with my hypothesis that state budget cuts are the primary
driver of tuition increases._

Two words: administrative bloat!

------
nsxwolf
We're not saving for our kids' college. The oldest is 16 years away, and we
believe that college will either be totally unaffordable, or the bubble will
have burst and won't exist in its current form.

We are focusing on our retirement instead, because we believe it's far better
to take care of that and not become a burden on your kids just when they're
trying to take care of their own families and retirements.

~~~
danudey
It's also far more valuable to teach your kids to save for their own college.
A few years of odd jobs, paper delivery, whatever will make them appreciate
that money isn't infinite. My parents didn't (and couldn't) afford to pay for
my college, and thanks to that I knew that every year I stayed would be
another ten grand in debt I would have to pay off. That led to me leaving
university after a pointless year and going into the workforce. As I
suspected, it was the best education-related decision I'd made.

That said, be careful. Student loans offices generally make the assumption
that parents will contribute towards their kids' education; if the current
status quo does remain at that point (and I hope it doesn't) they may find
themselves unable to afford college because they'll be told that you'll be
paying for half of it.

~~~
sliverstorm
I don't know that a paper delivery route will have a meaningful impact on
college tuition.

~~~
chongli
Yeah, unless they plan on delivering papers for about a century or two.

------
pflats
"Meanwhile, companies in a range of sectors — manufacturing, construction,
healthcare and other STEM fields — report severe skilled labor shortages."

Construction and manufacturing have severe labor shortages? I'd love to see a
source for that claim. In my neck of the woods, they still haven't recovered
from the recession.

~~~
crygin
They have skilled labor shortages at the prices they're willing to pay. Every
time you hear an employer claim they can't find someone for a position,
inquire about the salary they're offering.

~~~
enraged_camel
This type of bullshit seems to be widely believed on HN.

I work in the engineering department of a software company and I'm closely
involved with recruitment and interviews. I'll tell you this: the vast
majority of people (over 95%) we turn down are unqualified, period. Meaning,
we wouldn't hire them even at half the salary level advertised for the
position. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're willing to pay - our
salaries are actually very generous and we aren't afraid to pay someone what
they are actually worth. The problem is we can't actually find people like
that. So yes, from our perspective (250+ person tech company in SoCal), the
talent shortage is very, very real.

~~~
Iftheshoefits
"Unqualified" by what standard? What makes you think your standards are
appropriate for the positions you're offering? And what makes you think your
salaries are "very generous?" Lot's of companies think their salary/benefits
packages are "very generous" when they're anything but. Without context your
post is a giant meaningless assertion.

Software developers aren't (typically) stupid. They have a reasonable idea of
the value they provide the company. My estimation is that almost every company
under-compensates their engineering staff. I doubt yours is an exception.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>"Unqualified" by what standard? What makes you think your standards are
appropriate for the positions you're offering?

Because we do very rigorous analysis of why successful employees are actually
successful. We know what it takes to perform well at each job function.

>>And what makes you think your salaries are "very generous?" Lot's of
companies think their salary/benefits packages are "very generous" when
they're anything but. Without context your post is a giant meaningless
assertion.

Lots of websites aggregate salaries by position and geographic region, so we
know the numbers. We also have very good benefits. For instance, our 401k
program is a dollar-for-dollar match up to 15% of salary, which is extremely
rare.

------
smurph
A lot of kids are attending college because it's a status symbol for their
parents, and I think it's been that way since the 90s. I remember being in
high school and hearing about my friends getting in big fights with their
parents because they did not want to go to college, which of course was
unacceptable in white upper middle class suburbia.

------
vondur
This has been a problem here in California for a while now. Schools push kids
into a college track, even though they are not going to be successful. This
has caused the state universities and community colleges to take in larger
amounts of students which stretches budgets and also has caused the graduation
rates to decline. Many of these students would be better served by a
vocational school, but it seems that there has been a stigma placed on
students who don't want to go to a university.

------
buckbova
" More Americans attend college today than ever before: this year, 42% of
young people 18 to 24 years old."

This is why education costs so much nowadays and the product is so poor.
Everyone has the right to pursue learning. But, these folks aren't owed
anything because they've sat through enough classes to earn a BA.

~~~
fleitz
I don't understand how putting more students through college increases the
cost per student, in normal industries more business generally means reduced
costs.

~~~
scotch_drinker
High demand almost always means higher prices unless the supply is increased
proportionally. That's different from what I think you are saying which is as
a product is easier to produce, it's price goes down.

------
mathattack
It does seem like the drop out rate (and debt associated with non-degrees) is
high enough that the current model isn't working. My concern is that replacing
it with less education hurts more. The Vocational Education trend seems like
it's on the right track. It would also be good to copy the German
apprenticeship model.

------
geosith
The boomers made it a big deal, I do web development with my BA and wish every
day I had all that money back. I even tried to major in CS but couldn't follow
my classes because the school had brought in Russian grad students who
couldn't understand questions that were asked in class.

------
Jormundir
College-for-all is fine, and probably an inevitable pursuit.

What's not working is the college administrative model.

~~~
Iftheshoefits
College-for-all accomplishes two things: commoditization and (failed) attempts
at one-size-fits-all education.

Simply put, not everybody is equipped to handle an academic education (in
fact, a small minority truly are). At the same time, the vast majority of work
being done today in the US in almost any field (including the majority of
software development) really ought not be considered "academic" work--it's
essentially vocational already. One doesn't need--and shouldn't be required to
have--a college degree to be employable in a web app shop or for most
development (or other) roles.

The following may be an unpopular sentiment, but I truly believe that the
focus on "college-for-all" just frustrates people who are talented in ways
that are not academically inclined and, frankly, consumes resources unfairly
for those who are. All parties are worse off for it.

What we need is _less_ focus on conflating "academic education" with
"education", and the result of that is less focus on "college-for-all."

------
kyzyl
I see a lot of folks here talking about college education in economic terms.
So, sure, the evidence is certainly mounting that we've mucked something up:
tuition is stupidly high, graduation rates are low, people are dogging their
way through college 'just because' et cetra. But nobody (around here, anyhow)
seems to be speaking on higher education in terms of intrinsic value.

I'm talking about the way going to a university integrates you with a ton of
strange, weird, different people. How there is a tremendous amount of
information and culture that is absorbed, either by directly learning it or
simply by osmosis. The 'by osmosis' thing might be a bit of an assertion, but
I think that most people who've been to university can probably relate to the
concept.

In my opinion that adds a lot of value to a society. I know these are not
original ideas, and it wouldn't be nice to live in a highly educated society
where absolutely nobody has work, but I wouldn't immediately discount the
value that is added by sending the masses through university. As explained by
numerous people here, this strategy is clearly broken as a method of
certification and job training. Does that mean that we should do a 180 and
reserve anything beyond vocational training for the Marxes, Shakespeares, and
Feynmans? I think not. I'm not suggesting that people here are promoting that
idea, just illustrating that moving in that direction might destroy a lot of
value that's not as plainly seen as one's student loan balance (something I
can certainly relate to...) or the national unemployment rate. Maybe I'm just
being young and naive.

------
jheriko
Slightly disappointed to not see the obvious arguments.

As a university drop out I may be biased but I do believe that 'education for
all' is a horribly misguided premise which persists because of the
practicality of cheap childcare it provides (!)

I believe that vocational education is pretty flawed too...

I fail to see the value in qualification X if everyone can get it. All
qualifications seem to be an exercise in desire and discipline... and this is
why it doesn't work. IMO.

It works fine for serious and competitive fields like medicine and dentistry,
but for the vast majority of fields out there a degree isn't worth much at
all.

I can, and maybe have, written your dissertation from your textbook with no
lectures... and I will do just fine.

Smart guys will drop out and succeed because of the same reasons they drop
out, not in spite of it... just a shame so many drop outs are probably
dropping out because education is not for them - or possibly university or
vocational education is not right for their entire field.

------
austinl
Grants for vocational programs are nice and all, but the damage has already
been done. The huge expectation in the United States for every student to
attend college - that has to be overcome for these things to be successful.

------
ctdonath
"Supply and demand" at work.

~~~
interstitial
Subsidy and demand, you mean.

~~~
ctdonath
As the upper limits of cost are reached, people will explore every avenue for
obtaining funds for paying for what they demand, including borrowing from
their own future (mortgage), pooling money for odds-based distribution
(insurance), and confiscating money from others just this side of being theft
(tax-funded subsidies). When you run out of other people's money, you find
something else suitable to spend the limited funds on.

~~~
interstitial
Well, said. Have you written any more on this subject?

