the recent data looks a little better https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2019/12/10/college-completion-rates-continue-to-improve-heres-what-the-most-recent-data-show/#5a78d8982a89
I find it a terrible shame how much emphasis we, as a society, place on degree completion. It's basically a mass admission that we don't actually care about learning just in your ability to finish the program. A graduate of UPhoenix is in an economically stronger position than someone who drops out of Harvard in their final year and leaves without a degree. We should value learning. We should be looking at people holistically rather than by what achievements they've unlocked. Oh well.
I think these outcomes are being linked to eligibility for receiving financial aid so "success," defined as degree completion, is coming to determine financial viability for these schools.
Using Bourdieu's Capital theory, you can examine the tertiary schooling process as an exchange of capital. Students offer two forms of capital: their money and their academic effort. They then receive two forms in return: an education and a degree. All four forms of capital must be present and exchanged for the social process to be successful. In middle editions of Bear's Guide, John posed the question (I'm paraphrasing), "If you could get either an education or a degree, which would you take?" Nobody every said they'd pay the tuition and then take the education over the degree. But some certainly would take the degree over the education. This entire board is dedicated to degrees. I'm surprised here and then at how little discussion is given to methodologies--particularly since the audience is made up of adults for whom pedagogy may not be the preferred learning method. But no. It's about degrees and money, almost never academic effort or the education received, except in the extremes. (People wanting a degree quick, easy, and cheap.) This isn't a put-down. Rather, it's an observation about what we value more...and less.
It's true, the focus is on degrees and the cheaper/faster the better. "Did you learn anything?" sometimes seems secondary to "Did you get the job/promotion, etc." Lot's of jokes about "Do you want fries with that?" (some of those made by me). The hardcore base of mid-career professional looking for another degree in order to move up the ladder is giving way to younger people right out of high school going into DL programs right from the start. They're all trying to figure out the best way to teach/learn - lots of different styles, different needs, etc. It's something I wish the schools themselves would focus on in their self-descriptions. It would make it easier, for example, to decide which of the many MBA programs might work best for any given individual.
I did it. I went back to school specifically to re-direct my career. I wanted to become a scholar-practitioner in my field, understanding and using the theories underlying the practice of HRD. Plus, I wanted to create the basis for my "3rd act," my next professional practice. The process and the learning is doing all of that and more. But because I already have a degree at that level, the degree I earned from the process has had absolutely zero effect on anything I'm doing--or will do. Zip. The learning and experiences were vital. The degree, a mere curiosity. (The first degree had an out-sized impact on my "2nd act" in ways I simply did not anticipate, but the learning went largely unused. Go figure.)
I'm sure someone will want to shoot me, but I actually think the completion rates are too high. I don't even like the fact that about 40% of Americans have a degree. With numbers like that, it just cheapens what used to be (and still should be) a special accomplishment. This has had to have some kind of bearing on how in the last 10+ years the push for more Masters degrees has become impossible to ignore. Some already view the Bachelors degree as the new high school diploma, so what's next? The Masters degree will be seen as the new Bachelors degree? https://www.toptieradmissions.com/masters-is-new-bachelors/ I just don't like where any of this is going.
How does it "cheapen" the accomplishment? Starving my neighbor does not feed me. Keeping him from earning a degree would not make mine more useful. This would only apply in a zero-sum approach to society, which is not supported by history. No one complains about the near-universal award of high school diplomas, except where it is argued the curricula have been dumbed-down. But you're not arguing that. You're just saying that because more people are earning it, that's a bad thing. David Hapgood in his book Diplomaism in 1971 talked about creeping credentialing as a problem--requiring higher levels of education to do the same jobs. But they're often NOT the same jobs. I don't think anyone can dispute that people much be much more technically savvy now than in the past, for example. An alternative perspective could be that a more-educated populace is a good thing. (Not a perfect thing, since we do a very poor job organizing and leveraging strategically our human resource development efforts, and we put the high costs of doing so on individual students to a massive degree.)
The high school diploma was once considered highly valuable because for some time most of the U.S. adult population didn't have one. Now, it's no longer considered to be highly valuable because almost all Americans of proper age have one (90%). I see no reason we should think that a similar scenario would evade the college degree. A more educated populace is a good thing, but there are other ways to become educated besides degree programs, and today we have more ways to do it than ever before.
And yet, look at the proliferation of coding camps. You get no degree. A person without a bachelors who goes to coding camp leaves still with no bachelors. Yet, some of those camps have some pretty solid placement rates (certainly not all) because, for certain in demand skills, the education is valued over a degree. To a lesser extent you can see this in typical software development hiring as well. Someone with a bachelors degree in music theory but who has a proven track record of being a good software developer is more in demand than someone with a degree in C.S. who doesn't have that same track record even if they worked in a related field to the one they are applying.
This issue was hotly debated in the National Post (a Canadian newspaper) in the past. I'll provide some relevant quotes from Ken Coates; (Link: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ken-coates-are-too-many-of-our-kids-going-to-university) Are there too many Canadian young people at university? I think the question is a fair one, but you would not think so from the reaction to the issue being raised. A report I prepared for the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Career Ready, attracted way more attention for the suggestion that we could do with 30% fewer university students than at present, than for all of the other ideas and suggestions combined. There are other reasons to ask the question. Even the strongest advocates of a university education — and I am one of those — are worried about the state of undergraduate education in Canada. The financial models used by governments put a premium on entry level enrollment — governments love nothing more than maximum accessibility — but universities have responded with large first year classes, a growing reliance on contract instructors, limited student support services, and considerable dissatisfaction among students, faculty and parents about the quality of the educational experience. When employers complain, as many do, that graduates do not always have the core competencies one assumes would be attached to an undergraduate degree, the system should pay attention. So, let me be clear at the outset. I am a fervent advocate for university education for those students with the ability, the appropriate level of preparation, the motivation and curiosity needed for academic success. Conversely, I do not favour encouraging students to attend university if they lack these traits. Doing well at university is difficult. It requires real grit and determination and an advanced level of skill. Pretending otherwise diminishes the degree or, even worse, forces institutions into watering down the quality of the education provided to keep students in their programs. I worry when I hear it suggested that universities should be more open and that we should be encouraging even more people to attend. Heading off to university ill-prepared and without the right level of commitment is a recipe for an early “Dean’s vacation” from one’s studies. That well over 20 per cent of students who start university do not graduate in a reasonable amount of time is an indication to me that we have too many undergraduates. At some Canadian institutions, more than half of those who start a degree do not graduate. I always wonder why so little attention is given to the personal impact of failure on the many students who are forced to abandon their studies for academic reasons. Clearly — and unsurprisingly — some young people have the ability to succeed and others do not. Intellectual ability is not evenly distributed across the population, any more than is athletic, musical, technical or artistic capabilities. Watching, year after year, students with subpar writing and study skills enter the academy is painful in the extreme. University is not supposed to be the site for remedial education, yet the demand for such programs continues to grow. We do not live in Garrison Keeler’s Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average. Allowing students who are ill-prepared for a university education into our institutions weakens the experience for the stronger students and for faculty members, many of whom resent the expectation that they will have to work on developing basic skills among ill-prepared students.
No matter where you stand on this issue, it cannot be addressed without a serious, centralized effort to align what is being offered with what is needed. As it is, individuals make choices with little insight into the question, making huge commitments in terms of time, money, and opportunity cost. Whether you look at careers from Holland's perspective (selection) or how careers develop over time (Super), thought should be given to what is needed by the economy as well. The military does this. It puts recruits through a substantial screening process--including physical, mental, medical, and aptitude tests--to determine in which careers to place people. Their preferences are also taken into account, of course, but it is largely driven by what each branch of the military is requiring. Then it continues to develop its people as they grow in their careers--providing more education, training, and experience as they go. Occasionally, manpower managers must shift people from one career to another to balance the force and meet emergent requirements. Again, people's desires are taken into account, but they do not preponderate. I'm not suggesting all of society be run like this. Not at all. But a strong national qualifications framework (NQF) that recognized and promoted career-based learning ladders would do a better job matching career selection and development to industry needs. Priority could be given to particular industries with shortages, or population pockets needing retraining and employment opportunities. Each rung on the ladder could be met with education, training, and experience and measured with credits, certificates, examinations, etc. An effective NQF could be created through a partnership of government, tertiary education, professional associations, and training institutions, and private and public sector employers. It could be developed over time, one occupational/vocational/professional area at a time and evaluated using Patton's developmental evaluation concepts--best for understanding progress in complex challenges. It would provide career ladders for employees to achieve and employers to rely upon. It could easily incorporate higher education learning and degrees, but not exclusively. It would not necessarily be a "strong" NQF (like Singapore) or a "weak" one (like the UK), but something focused on the particular and emergent needs of our society. Strong but narrow. They're not perfect, and they can even fail (South Africa). But they can also transform an economy (Singapore and the other "Asian Tigers"). Imagine what it could do for certain sectors of our economy with its strong institutions already in place.
I think debating whether or not the increase in college graduates and the decrease in the value of the college degree is a matter is just beating a dead horse that everyone already knows is dead. See other discussions about the increase in MBA programs and grads, and the decrease in value (real or perceived, and perceived can be just as strong in this realm) of the MBA. I'm more concerned with why the college degree is losing its value and what can be done to reverse the trend. Some have argued that it may be a self-correcting matter as enrollments drop and schools close, although some of that could be attributed to current economic strengthening. Where I disagree with the take LA has (a take that is quite common however) is that even though college is strongly harped on as something people should do after high school, going to school through the 10th grade (or up to a certain age that would generally be considered the last year of "high school age") is something that is actively mandated in some states while going to college is not mandated anywhere. Because of that, I see the likelihood of the college completion rates ever matching or eclipsing the high school completion rates as very slim, not impossible, but very slim.
Just a quick point of order...the Navy doesn't operate like this. You take the ASVAB prior to enlistment. Your score, not any psychological testing, determines which ratings you are eligible to pursue. You get a contract for a particular "A" School depending on school availability. Generally speaking, unless a rate is closed, you can go anywhere you want. This just moves boot camp ship date around. If, you example, you want to be a hospital corpsman but there are no slots available in hospital corpsman A School until month X but there are slots available sooner in Logistics Specialist A School, you can leave for boot camp earlier and go to LS school. You are guaranteed a seat in the school. You are not guaranteed to graduate. If you fail, the Navy sends you wherever they need you. Choices are taken into consideration but otherwise you are at the Navy's mercy. If you graduate from school, however, you're whatever that rate is and there is no provision to force you into something else unless you lose eligibility. If, for example, you're an Intelligence Specialist and you lose your clearance then you'll be reclassified to a rating with a lower clearance requirement. Other than that, the Navy can't just walk up and tell an Operations Specialist that he is now a Boatswains Mate. The Navy can freeze advancement and that Operations Specialist can lose the ability to make rank and risk being discharged for high year tenure and then request reclassification. But the Navy doesn't force reclassify someone unless, again eligibility is affected. Interestingly, Officers don't have nearly the same protection. They can be moved and reclassified and reassigned with much more ease. I feel like we've discussed this before and I think we're on the same page. One of the things that always annoyed me about job postings was the phrase "bachelors degree or equivalent." In practice, the only "equivalent" is some foreign equivalent where WES says "Yeah. This is equivalent to a bachelors even if it isn't called that." But there is no reason to have a bachelors degree for every field or to require people to have a bachelors degree in unrelated fields, in my opinion. Say for example in a theoretical framework a bachelors degree is a Level 5 Qualification. Now let's say that cooks and other food handlers have a range of qualification that goes from Level 2, entry level food prep work, all the way up to Level 7, someone with years of training and experience who can teach all of the below levels. Best of all, rather than requiring that chef to take online classes and maybe earn an MBA just because it was the most available degree, their training can be focused on the culinary arts. For HR, we can look at the chef with a Level 5 qualification, the food and beverage manager with a bachelors (level 5 qualification) and easily align career levels. Instead what we get is a confusing system of titles and salary grades, many of which overlap. Qualifications are inconsistently applied and salaries are wildly disparate. All of those shop trained, non-degreed, engineers who came up through the ranks did so because their training and experience more or less equated to a bachelors degree in engineering. So why not just formalize that a machinist with a Level 5 qualification is the "or equivalent" and let us hire the most qualified candidate?
Neuhaus: Without quoting and responding to each point about the military, let me say that I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. All of the services--not just the Navy--recruit that way. I'm not sure what I said that gave you some other impression. Typically, you talk to a recruiter, take the ASVAB, get a physical, enlist, and then wait for your start date (based on your technical training school, backed up to allow you to go through basic training before it.) As for reclassification, I can only speak about the Air Force. Yes, people are sometimes reclassified involuntarily because of staffing imbalances. There's no rock-solid guarantee you'll get to stay in your specialty for your entire career, although most people who wish to do so are able to. When they're reclassified, it's into a specialty they're qualified to enter, and they get the same technical training everyone else gets. It's usually tied to re-enlistment--you either enter the new field or you're denied re-enlistment and have to get out. Usually there are more than a few choices made available. I think the "bachelor's degree or equivalent" is a way to keep from being sued. It frees the employer to require the degree while still saying it doesn't exclude non-graduates. It also gives the employer the flexibility to hire a non-graduate over a graduate without kicking up a complaint. As for NQFs, they're well-established and managed all over the world. They don't (normally) force employers to take people holding those qualifications.
