NY Times article on degree- and certificate -use problems

The Times weighed in yesterday with a long and very critical article on this situation. The interviews with students who found their degrees of little or no value are pretty depressing . . . but the nearly 400 comments made by readers are really devastating: what a litany of shattered dreams, broken promises, misleading school reps, and so on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/business/14schools.html?ref=us

 

Depressing for sure. I knew a kid who in Portland at the Cordon Blue school. He told me all about the amount of money that "some" graduate made working on a cruise ship working the Bahama's. I'm very much a buyer beware person...so buyer beware. I do think that there might be a higher education bubble coming soon.

 

In my opinion, DL might be contributing to this issue. I believe that making education more accessible might have it cons as this could be explaining the lower value of education nowadays.

 

Too many people overlook their local public votech schools!

State funded votech schools often provide the same training as for-profits for very cheap. The for-profits are big here in Georgia, but it's hard to see why. Take a look at the distribution of schools at the link below. Basically, everyone has a local votech that provides very relevant training often for free or almost free with financial aid. Note that these are strictly the tech schools that provide certs and AAS degrees. There is an entirely separate community college system that feeds the senior colleges.

http://www.tcsg.edu/tech_map.php

 

As much as DL works for me and I like it, I 100% agree with you.

 

I agree. Our local tech schools in my area cost a little over $2.00 a credit hour. Why in the world would you take out $40,000 in debt for careers that pay $12-$18 an hour at best?

 

It seems that the student loan system's failure to check abuse and over-pricing are the central problems. The loan system is useful, but invites trouble. Before Excelsior had student loans I doubt most people spent too much money on their degrees there. Now, since the arrival of their classes and loans, I bet there are many people leaving with a huge debt. I have an Excelsior BSLS that hasn't been a windfall, but I paid very little to get that degree.

 

Days of Young

Thanks for the post, Dr. Bear. After I graduated from high school in '86 I enrolled in an electronics program offered by a local outfit (IET?); yes, paid for with financial aid. Being a natural cynic, I kicked the tires so to speak, and immediately concluded that all was not right with the program. While I left the program after the first quarter, my best friend's cousin competed all six quarters of the program. This resulted in over $38,000 in loans, and the following admonition to the graduate after months of looking for employment: "Oh, you need a college degree to get a position." It was a real eye-opener.

 

The article mostly focuses on students that enrolled in overpriced programs to begin with. For example: most community colleges offer a CNA program for $1,000+, which is a good stepping stone to finding a job in the healthcare industry, then studying to become a LPN down the line.

 

Why anyone would enroll in a culinary arts program makes no sense, since the restaurant sector has been hit especailly hard in this recession.

 

A lot of the tech school programs lead to really nice jobs paying more than the average BS degree. For those with existing degrees you can take a short-course and learn something in demand like welding or HVAC. Suppose you have a degree in history, very nice, but now you need a job. There's no shame in blue-collar work! If your latest career fades away you can keep going back to retrain in whatever happens to be in demand. Many companies sponsor the programs to get qualified technicians.

 

TV marketing and aggressive sales tactics duped them.

 

The root of the problem is probably that schools are pumping out more trained people than there are jobs. It's a bit like the PhD in Humanities problem. There are hundreds of new grads each year for a handful of jobs. Additionally, I think you also have to take a look at the people themselves to answer the question. Do they feel they are entitled to a job simply because they graduated? Are they sending out hundreds of resumes? Are they lazy and assumed that upon graduating hundreds of offers would just come rolling in? It's tough to really nail down the problem.

 

It is not just humanities, it is almost every field now. Last week I sat in a hiring committee for part time teaching at our University in Information Technology. There were people with Post Docs, 2 masters and PhDs looking for part time teaching. Lately it is amazing the number of PhDs in Computer fields without work.
Our system is factoring too many graduates and we don't need as many, Universities are manufacturing PhDs like pan cakes now. The DETC DBAs will make matters just worst in my opinion.
It is not uncommon to have people graduating with PhDs and waiting 3 to 5 years doing post docs while they get something.

 

Not really, what I see now is that people with a BS are getting the positions of that normally require only a AA. The problem is also that programs are so watered down that you need a BS just to do tech support.

 

It seems like when I was in high school, it was drilled into us that if we didn't do well, we'd never get into college. Now it seems that you could barely graduate, never take the SAT and as long as you have money, anyone can get into a college these days. During the 40s, 50s, etc. not many people had degrees unless they were a doctor, teacher, etc. Now, it seems like EVERYONE has a degree, even those that don't need them.

 

What do you make of all the H1-B's coming over here for jobs? Do you recall when Bill Gates went on a tour of the country and talked about how we had so few STEM grads? Now you are saying that we have to many? Interesting, I am an outlier in the IT field and this is a big issue for some.

 

Don't blame the schools--they're job is to educate. Don't blame the students--they're job is to get educated. Don't blame the employers--they're job is to hire the most capable graduates. So who do you blame? Us.

Yes, us, the American people. We have a flexible human capital market (HCM) in the U.S. As a result, the HCM is driven by competition, as are all relatively free markets. Employees are left responsible for their own professional development--employers largely stick to developing certain employees in certain well-defined and needed areas. (Although some have tuition reimbursement programs, these are much more a benefit--a gift--than a human development strategy.)

Because our HCM is competitive, employees naturally strive for more and more education and training in order to beat out the competition for jobs, promotions, and raises. The suppliers (schools) supply and collect. The real demanders (employers) don't pay--they make employees do it by forcing them to compete among themselves.

A lot of this is fueled by an extremely unfocused Title IV system, which bestows educational benefits (grants, loans, work study, etc.) with almost no regard for the HCM's actual requirements. Thus, it contributes mightily to the problem. However, eliminating student aid would serve to further the breach between the "haves" and the "have-nots," something we certainly do not need. So what to do?

There are several countries that have "strong" human capital systems. Germany has the Dual Apprenticeship system, where older teens enter into occupations by completing a multi-year mix of training and work. Japan still clings to lifelong employment where employees' development decisions are made largely by the employers. In the UK, they have a weak HC system--the government doesn't really control supply and demand--but their qualifications framework at least gives people paths to follow. Australia and New Zealand do, too.

The Asian Miracle countries (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.) showed what a governed HCM could produce, but that kind of thing results in a lot less flexibility for individuals--a hallmark of our country's history. So....what to do (again)?

-- The U.S. government takes complete control of tertiary education and training in the U.S., determining who will go and learn what.

-- The U.S. government collaborates with industry to set up a qualifications framework (targeting key areas of our economy) and focuses its funding of tertiary learning towards those (no more studying whatever you want if you want federal student aid).

-- The U.S. government doesn't build a framework, but instead opts to make targeted decisions about what it will fund and support. You want to study archeology? You're on your own. Mechanical engineering to build wind turbines? Right this way....

-- The U.S. government could decide to do nothing. The HCM will continue to be flexible and competitive, and the same market forces will drive people to get more and more education and training just to keep up.

I suspect the latter will occur. It is the path of least resistance in these times where the American people have little tolerance of politicians who actually want to make tough decisions. ("Get your government hands of my student aid!" I can almost hear it now.) We think we're free by keeping government from making decisions, but sometimes it must--or things remain the same.

If that's the case, employers will be stuck with employees who are stuck with creeping credentialism, what David Hapgood called "Diplomaism." And who will benefit? Tertiary institutions of higher learning, of course. The suppliers for your fix. Any wonder school costs are rising at much higher rates compared to inflation? Even in tough economic times? Do it right and your school is positively recession-proof. Oh, and get it accredited as quickly and as easily as possible. Ka-ching!