[alphaoverlord]

This blog post seems like a jumble of ideas that are neither consistent or connected.

It starts with colleges should be more than job training centers, then ends with trying to create an accreditation process to prove value to external entities (of which I assume employers are a big part?).

It mentions the high cost of education, then describes how his current options are lacking because the number of classes in each major is limited.

He talks about how administrators are unnecessary, then suggests a similarly labor intensive accreditation system that requires experts, committees and other logistics that requires significant manpower and time/energy.

There are many flaws with the educational system, of which convenience, rigor, equality, and cost are a few the OP mentions, however his solution doesn't seem to solve many of the challenges he mentions. I doubt that accreditation is a major cost to running a university - there are simply many other market forces (wanting facilities, a good football team, strong researchers that might not put teaching first) that causes the cost/benefit relationship to be the status quo. He finds it unconscionable that adjunct faculty don't make enough money, then hopes to solve it with a free market - where honestly the things he values might not be the things many others value. He wants rigor - then critiques current accreditation processes that largely does what he suggests.

Each of the major MOOCs already are trying to accredite/build reputation/be rigorous. What OP is essentially doing is describing the idea of Udacity, Coursera, etc without the technical backend, the users to attract such a marketplace, connections, support, or actually being able to do a MOOC.

[ChuckMcM]

Considering that it is their first degree, I made the possible inaccurate assumption that this person was just getting out of the US equivalent of high school. My thoughts at that age were pretty jumbled too.

Many of my peers didn't really have any idea why they were in college until maybe their third year. It wasn't until they had the benefit of having gone through such a program and looked back on it to appreciate what it was that it was and how it affected them.

My sister asked once why I considered college graduation a 'big deal' and not high school graduation. My response is that graduating from college is the first thing you can do where it's reasonably hard, takes a multi-year effort, and is completely optional. It is, for me, a signal that someone has decided to pursue something through to the end, and to do so with the full knowledge that not doing so is also a valid path. It is, for me, the kinds of things that adults do, and kids don't do.

[ap22213]

"...graduating from college is the first thing you can do where it's reasonably hard, takes a multi-year effort, and is completely optional...a signal that someone has decided to pursue something through to the end..."

I see this point-of-view a lot, and it is certainly the conventional wisdom. But, for a moment, let's abandon this belief and explore other perspectives.

What if college isn't a demonstration of tenacity or natural ability? Instead, what if education is just a game that everyone is forced to play at an early age, and what if advanced-degree seekers are those who have learned to enjoy playing the game? (Or, have been forced to play, because of economic reasons)

I certainly can buy that.

For instance, I know a lot of people with advanced degrees, and they generally fit into 3 buckets: 1) people who were expected to get an advanced degree because their parents had them, 2) people who enjoy playing games and winning external validation, 3) people who have an innate obsession with some aspect of knowledge. (BTW - I think the true scholars are category 3.)

What if people who win at education are just people who are naturally competitive, like being bounded by rules, are good at min-max game play, and who ultimately are driven by praise?

Certainly, those types of people would be excellent candidates for the corporation. But, are they also good candidates for being citizens or Humanity, in general?

And, what are other perspectives? I am just a curious person who happens to have a general dislike of conventional wisdom.

[chasing]

> For instance, I know a lot of people with advanced degrees, and they generally fit into 3 buckets: 1) people who were expected to get an advanced degree because their parents had them, 2) people who enjoy playing games and winning external validation, 3) people who have an innate obsession with some aspect of knowledge. (BTW - I think the true scholars are category 3.)

This is reductionist nonsense. Please. People get advanced degrees for a million reasons.

> What if people who win at education are just people who are naturally competitive, like being bounded by rules, are good at min-max game play, and who ultimately are driven by praise?

You can replace "education" with damned near anything in this sentence. "Business." "Basketball." "Super Smash Brothers Brawl." "Terrorism." Which is a sign that it's an asinine point.

[ap22213]

I'm sorry that someone stating their thoughts can so easily unleash your spite.

[chasing]

No spite! I harbor no ill will. I just thought they weren't very good points. And I tried to explain why.

[ChuckMcM]

I don't think 'conventional wisdom' means what you think it means, but setting that aside, what are you trying to say?

That people go to college for different reasons? I certainly think that would be generally agreed to.

[ap22213]

Isn't it pretty straight forward as to what it means? I wasn't attacking you; why do you seem defensive?

I'm saying:

1. Just because someone finishes a degree program doesn't mean that they have tenacity or natural ability. (The conventional wisdom, which you invoked, is that they do.)

2. If the goal is to filter people for tenacity or natural ability, there are probably better ways to do that.

3. Hiring people who view education as a game (i.e. I scored better than you!) may be a good strategy for corporations but not necessarily for entrepreneurship, science, or society, in general.

Also, I'm not trying to 'win' at internet discussion - just bring up different perspectives, which I think are interesting. And, perhaps other people have other interesting perspectives.

[ChuckMcM]

I'm not feeling attacked, your response was confusing.

You used the term "conventional wisdom" when perhaps you meant "What I think other people believe, or I have read other people to believe." That was confusing because I don't agree with the statement you made in #1. Folks I knew at college, and since then, all shared a common experience when their natural ability completely failed them in college. They 'hit the wall' as it were. That was part of the maturation process.

My comment was that college was the perhaps the first time someone gets to choose to take on a multi-year task that is nominally difficult. That isn't a subjective statement, it is a descriptive one. I say perhaps because it isn't the only possibility but it was the relevant one because the original article is about college and more specifically college degrees.

Your second statement asserts a filtration process. Again, not mentioned by me, but implied in the original article because the plan to make up a degree (presumably to qualify). Except that it isn't a filtration process its a selection process. Lots of people work in this industry and others without any degree or other certification. They experience selection bias when they are in a selection pool of individuals that have degrees but that selection bias is a primarily content based. The same person would have no selection bias in a pool of individuals with degrees outside the area of the job.

Successfully completed coursework in a topic, not necessarily a degree, carries with it an indication of interest. I've got 12 college hours of CNC machining coursework on my transcript, that comes from being interested in manufacturing. Interested enough to voluntarily invest some of my time to learn more about it. It is a social signal of sorts that it stronger than just a conversational opening of "Yeah I'm interested in CNC manufacturing machines."

I also disagree with your #3 but I understand what your are saying. Anyone who came through college and didn't get an appreciation for what it tried to teach them (which is my interpretation of the statement 'treating it like a game') would in fact be a signal not to hire them. It would represent to me, a lack of maturation in their ability to evaluate the use of their time. In my experience, that lack of maturity expresses as poor judgement in the workplace.

[snowwrestler]

If your alternate conception of college were true, then we would expect to find a strongly negative correlation between college degrees and people who are good citizens or good humans. We don't see that at all, so we can conclude that there is more to going to college than you propose.

[ap22213]

I'd predict that there would be no correlation, at all.

[at-fates-hands]

There's so many good points in your post.

The one thing which benefited me the greatest when I came out of college is the ability to think critically. I was able to form my opinions, examine things in a scientific manner, and make conclusions based on research and a logical thinking process. Something I wasn't even close to handling when I was 18 years old - which goes to your point about teenagers taking time to find themselves. It took me at least 2 years before I actually realized the opportunity college gave me.

And yet, for all of the questionable classes and lackadaisical professors, I still came out with a much stronger set of tools to look at and examine the world around me and communicate those ideas in a coherent manner to my peers.

These are the kinds of tools you simply cannot put a price tag on.

[epa]

It depends who you are, i think this is all relative. Not talking myself explicitly, but for some people graduating high school is a major accomplishment in their life and is something that took a multi-year effort and was completely optional. Imagine a teenager who is the first one to graduate from high school in their family, who had numerous pressures to drop out (baby, lack of money, etc).

But I do agree with you that many people are unsure why they are in college until they are able to reflect on it after the fact. I think that happens a lot in life where you learn about yourself by looking at prior events.

[prof_hobart]

>My response is that graduating from college is the first thing you can do where it's reasonably hard, takes a multi-year effort, and is completely optional

That's not entirely true - taking a job also falls into that category. Not saying that college isn't a valid choice, but 3 years of work at the same point can be an equally valid choice.

[bane]

Not nearly as valid. Generally, people have to have a job in order to survive.

[gobots]

I worked to teach myself how to program. Started at the age of 9, pursued it off and on until I was 21 then went hard at it. I dropped out of community college because I had to work – so you're correct, working is something you must do to make money sometimes. But I had other options available to me. The easiest path I could have taken was to continue working construction for my father or paint houses with my cousin. These were neither fulfilling lines of work nor would they allow me to accomplish the life I wanted.

I was forced to drop out of college due to lack of money, but I would hardly consider what I have done to be less of an accomplishment. Over the last decade I have learned PHP, Perl, Javascript, Node, Python, CSS, HTML, various databases and now I am trying to transition into video game design and development which is what my plan has been for the last 15 years.

I disagree that college is the highest form of validation one can receive.

Edit: Grammer, spelling and this: forgot to mention that I have worked for several well known companies in a major US city now, one of them for 2.5 years, another for 5. I have also maintained a steady stream of side projects and clients.

[spacemanmatt]

I dropped out of college to accept a job in my desired field of software development. It continues to make sense in hindsight, especially with NPR running frequent stories about the high cost of financing education, market value, etc. My work experience IS my resume. YMMV.

[snowwrestler]

What if you had continued to paint houses with your cousin for 3 years? Would you feel that getting and holding that job is also an equivalent to receiving a bachelor's degree?

[prof_hobart]

Not really, at least not in my country (UK). It's entirely possible to survive without working.

It's also entirely possible to choose to go to college for several years rather than work - the decision to go to work at that point can be as as much an active (and optional) choice as going to college. No one is forcing you to do one or the other, or neither, at that point.

And even if you do have to work, you can choose to do the bare minimum to get by, or you can make the personal choice to push yourself.

[kalms]

I really like that point of view. Don't have a college degree, but it still resonates.

[broodbucket]

High school graduation is a rite of passage, university is not, that's the difference.

[matwood]

Really? I was just happy it was done and I could go do something interesting and be treated like an adult. I still speak to exactly 1 person I knew from HS. For me, HS is already a mostly forgotten blip in my life.

Undergrad and then graduate school were a much bigger deal because it was up to me to complete them. I didn't have teachers or my parents or anything else making me finish, it was something I did on my own. They were also both interesting and challenging.

[nmrm]

You make some good points, but many of your objections are shallow.

> It starts with colleges should be more than job training centers, then ends with trying to create an accreditation process to prove value to external entities (of which I assume employers are a big part?).

It is absolutely consistent to realize that a degree is not about job training, but should probably produce employable graduates. Ensuring the quality of the program is important for both. Many universities/colleges are "not about job training", but all of them are accredited.

I think the point is to ensure quality rather than demonstrate value; the main reason he identifies for not attending the smaller public schools in his area is quality. Similarly for existing online schools, which definitely are about job training.

> It mentions the high cost of education, then describes how his current options are lacking because the number of classes in each major is limited.

I don't think this is inconsistent (which seems to be what you're implying), but agree that the author probably has a poor understanding of how such things work. See threads below.

> He talks about how administrators are unnecessary, then suggests a similarly labor intensive accreditation system that requires experts, committees and other logistics that requires significant manpower and time/energy.

Well, you actually answer this below. Lots of those "administrative" costs are not about necessary things like accreditation and instruction (sports, fancy facilities, libraries, etc.).

Some of these (e.g. libraries) are necessary (for serious students). However, this approach could externalize many such costs. Most public universities open these facilities -- esp. their libraries -- to the public (sometimes for a small fee). That doesn't make the cost problem for the sector go away, but it does provide an affordable education for those who cannot afford the mainstream option.

> however his solution doesn't seem to solve many of the challenges he mentions.

I don't think this is intended as a complete solution. I think it's intended to solve one specific problem standing in the way of a whole variety of solutions (that is, quality assurance and associated reputation).

> He finds it unconscionable that adjunct faculty don't make enough money, then hopes to solve it with a free market - where honestly the things he values might not be the things many others value.

This is a fair and important criticism. I think the author of the post should think deeply. I imagine there are two answers. First, his approach seems to genuinely value rigor. This can go a long way toward resolving negative perceptions (one major road-block for these sorts of approaches). Second, there might be enough similar people that this sort of project could become feasible.

> He wants rigor - then critiques current accreditation processes that largely does what he suggests.

I didn't see any critique of the current accreditation process. It's fair to ask why he isn't using one of those. I assume there are two reasons. First, many probably have a strong bias toward brick and mortar institutions. Second, I am sure many are "rubber stamp" committees (e.g. consider the dubious curricula of various "accredited!" online CS degree programs).

> Each of the major MOOCs already are trying to accredite/build reputation/be rigorous. What OP is essentially doing is describing the idea of Udacity, Coursera, etc without the technical backend, the users to attract such a marketplace, connections, support, or actually being able to do a MOOC.

Well, no. His model is actually very different.

The M in the MOOC model is important. Star lecturers, hundreds of students, several TAs and little or no cost to the student has been the model thus far. There are many reasons this model probably doesn't scale to an entire degree program. Quality of assessment is one reason.

His model seems to call for something more intimate and more hands-on, with the instructor paid exclusively through student tuition. This seems both more sustainable and more likely to produce quality students (imho).

edit: cleaned up some grammar. But this is still an internet comment post, so thanks for putting up with my slopping writing!

[webhat]

He does have some critique of the institutions which have received accreditation: ...even though some terrible schools and programs are accredited by the respected accrediting agencies...

There are different levels of approval and accreditation in the US, and as a layperson the distinction might be unclear. Due to this lack of transparency means some agencies might be seen to be doing a better job that others.

My experience with the education board in Vermont was very good. And although it wasn't exceptionally hard to get approval to give course credit, which is what you can get if you don't yet have all the prerequisites for a full degree program, it was certainly not a rubber stamp.

[nmrm]

Thanks for the reflection based on your experience. fwiw I spent some time on Oplerno today. Your model (start with credit, then figure out accreditation through existing reputable boards) makes a lot more sense.

> ...and as a layperson the distinction might be unclear.

This is really the problem I understand he's trying to solve. As long as there exists meaningless accreditation and general confusion among laypeople, non-traditional models face an uphill battle.

So it's not that accreditation agencies in general are awful. It's just at accreditation doesn't mean much to people who aren't insiders. Which is just as a bad, from a student's perspective and from the perspective of non-traditional institutions.

Offering an accreditation aimed at admittedly non-traditional degree programs where the accreditation really means something seems helpful. But perhaps this is better solved by going through one of the existing high-quality accreditation agencies and then explicitly pointing out the quality of your accreditation.

[jalanb]

> there are simply many other market forces (... a good football team ...)

Not being an American, may I just take a slight space to admit that Mind == Blown

[mhb]

So this is your first encounter with the pretty crazy association between education and sports in the US?

[senand]

I'm diverging from the topic, but isn't it terrible that "a good football team" is a major cost to running a university (in the US)?

[ecocentrik]

It's my understanding that a "good" college football team generates considerable sums of money for a univerity. You're probably thinking about the cost of starting a football program or maintaining an unsuccessful football team.

[JackFr]

A great college football team makes money, but does require a substantial capital investment. Typically the only private institutions you will find in the AP Top 25 are Stanford and Notre Dame. The bulk of schools outside the Top 25 lose money on their football teams. Before we weep over that however, they lose money on all of their sports teams, their student newspapers and student theater productions and a flagship state university, the non-student state residents often do consider a quality football program through the auspices of the university a benefit they are willing to pay for.

[zanny]

> do consider a quality football program through the auspices of the university a benefit they are willing to pay for.

Then it wouldn't be an operational loss, if the attracted number of students paying for the school with a football team offsets the costs of running the team after any direct proceeds.

[Amezarak]

The last I read, only the top ten or so teams turned a profit.

I am somewhat embittered though, as during my time at university, my tuition went up by $500 for the explicit purpose of funding the football team. And I was paying cash.

[aet]

ACC profit Virginia Tech $14,853,103.00 Clemson Univ. $14,688,975.00 North Carolina State $11,609,800.00 Georgia Tech $9,350,858.00 Univ. of North Carolina $7,289,263.00 Univ. of Miami $6,767,811.00 Univ. of Virginia $3,076,978.00 Florida State Univ. $2,613,485.00 Duke Univ. $1,796,461.00 Univ. of Maryland $1,676,620.00 Boston College $1,211,197.00 Wake Forest University -$2,289,583.00

[TheCoelacanth]

Only the top few athletics programs turn a profit. About half of D1 football teams turn a profit.

[MayanAstronaut]

Agreed, it is almost as if he needs a BA in English Lit