<p>Not a Parent but I've been talking with my Econ professor alot about the economics of higher ed and figured it might be worth stirring up some debate on the forum on the policy side of things.</p>
<p>With all of the fuss going on about student loan debt and the american crisis in education, can Americans (still) say that they have the best higher educational system in the world? What is wrong with American higher-ed and how can we fix it? What makes us better (or worse) than other systems? How do you define success in higher ed?</p>
<p>Should the goal of higher education be to send the most citizens to college (alluding to Obama's goal that, "by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.") If not, what should it be?</p>
<p>Perhaps of consideration are tuition costs vs career preparation, ability of different socioeconomic classes to get highered, etc.</p>
<p>Lots of good questions!
Best system in the world? Probably. We’re pretty spoiled actually in that Americans hope to provide access to higher education to everyone. We may fall short of that but can’t fail us for trying. There are lots of opportunity. Another question though is should we be trying to provide higher education for everyone? Or would it be better to provide more job opportunities that are outside the “college educated” realm?</p>
<p>Student loan debt? I’d send everyone a calculator and a real world mirror. See the “magical thinking” thread. Some of it is compounded by competition for certain professions. The more people who want to be an “X”, the more years of schooling it seems to take–sometimes out of proportion to the actual job performed after graduation. They just keep adding more hoops to jump through.</p>
<p>The goal of a society is to have productive and educated members. That does not mean everyone needs a college education to be productive or successful in life.</p>
<p>The heart of the U.S. higher education system is the community college. The majority of U.S. students are in two-year institutions. The average age of students at community colleges is (last time I looked) 29, compared with just under 25 for four-year colleges. There is nothing like this anywhere else in the world. 18-year-old college students are somewhat the exception.</p>
<p>I think we do likely have the best higher education system in the world, but it doesn’t lie in the top 100 colleges (where only a small minority of students are attending).</p>
<p>OK so while the top 100 universities only educate a small percentage of the population, don’t they also have the greatest influence? That is, they generate the most valuable research, educate the future leaders and innovators, etc. And premier higher education is not just an asset for Americans, but an international one, is it not?
[No</a> Better Export: Higher Education - Commentary - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“No Better Export: Higher Education”>No Better Export: Higher Education)</p>
<p>I hear alot of students wishing the US had a system like Canada or Great Britain, where they weren’t forced into going into ridiculous amounts of loans to get a top education and that premier universities (ie McGill, Oxbridge) were within reach. Should this seriously be an ideal?</p>
<p>No, they don’t have the greatest influence. The greatest influence by far are educational opportunities offered by the community college system, which provide lifelong opportunities for folks with little in the way of opportunities otherwise to better themselves. </p>
<p>The sons and daughters of the one percent, and the educational cream will rise to the top in any case (as we can see in other nations as well). And large numbers of those who attend top 100 universities don’t need anything in the way of loans, and assets of the top 5% of the population have risen faster than prestige private college tuition in the past 30 years. For them, college has never been more inexpensive.</p>
<p>How does one measure the quality of higher education? By the quantity and quality of publications? By the impact the publications have? By the growth in the number of publications? By the number of degrees awarded? By the growth in the number of degrees? By the price of the education? By the total debt of the students? By the starting income of the graduates? How?</p>
<p>If one could factor out the contributions of non-education related factors that were critical in pursuing said opportunities…</p>
<p>If my kid goes to an Ivy, networks to oblivion, and lands 5 jobs after graduation thanks to the networking, is that because of the Ivy’s quality of education or because of the networking? </p>
<p>Are we going to start a US News ranking on ‘intangibles’ from now on?</p>
<p>Ivies are irrelevant. Most students don’t go there, and they are atypical in age, background, and family income. The majority of students come from the top 3-5% of the population in income. On top of that, a significant portion of the student population is international. If they disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn’t make much difference. (They would be spread out among the state honors colleges and other institutions, and would do just fine.)</p>
<p>You can say the same about any school. I still keep up with a dozen Cajun State classmates 30 years later, if I network my way into a job thru them is it because of the network or because of Cajun State?</p>
<p>No, that’s just stupid. There’s a really easy way to do this, mandate it and add a flat tax on your life that you must pay until you attain a bachelors degree. It’s still impossible that everyone could go to college, but if you’re trying to maximize the number who go, this is probably the best option. Seems a bit silly though, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From a public perspective, to maximize the productive capacity of those who do attend and to select students in a way that maximizes the overall productive capacity compared to the public cost of education.</p>
<p>Yes, having more private universites than other countries is for the better. Having seen the situation in other countries where the public univerisities have an acute shortage of places and funding, the students who cannot get a spot have unattractive options: no university or study abroad. A good analogy is public healthcare in Canada-- you could die while waiting a VERY long time to get mid-urgency surgery which is rationed. </p>
<p>The large number of quality private universities in the U.S. provide competition among them and the public universities for attracting quality students, which results in higher academic standards.</p>
<p>Who told you that? I had a business with offices in British Columbia, and routinely, our employees got life-saving surgery - as well as routine care, and integrated care - faster there than here. (and if you are among the 50,000,000 people intermittently without insurance here? are you going to get scheduled any time soon?)</p>
<p>Our two-year PUBLIC community college system is the envy of the world.</p>
<p>My Canadian colleagues complain about the waiting for mid-urgency (revision from my previous post) surgical procedures.</p>
<p>I agree that the two-year PUBLIC community college system is great. However, these colleges may not have been able to offer enough places if the potential for over-crowding wasn’t alleviated by the existance of private options.</p>
<p>There aren’t many two-year private options. So there isn’t much in the way of alleviation. </p>
<p>My d., with the best insurance in my state, waiting EIGHT MONTHS for a “mid-urgency” surgical procedure (and it didn’t happen until we changed insurance!). As for those without insurance (only upwards of 50,000,000 people), would then even get “mid-urgency surgical procedures” until they became full emergencies here? (and even then?)</p>
<p>No they aren’t. The level of education one receives there is shocking, not even British high school standard from what I’ve seen. If American schools were better and actually educated their kids there would be no need for community colleges anyway.</p>
<p>All is explained. How many of your Canadian colleagues have died while waiting for mid-urgency surgical procedures? Uh-huh. Thought so.</p>
<p>I’m Canadian by origin, moved to the US by job transfer 10 years ago. When I lived in Canada I complained about the medical system too. Everyone does. My relatives still do. They still have a system that’s insanely better than what we have here in the US. Ask your Canadian colleagues if they’d vote for scrapping the Canadian system in favor of a US-style private insurance system.</p>
<p>There is a HUGE problem in this country when smart kids can get into college, but can’t afford the loans. Many working class parents (like myself) who did not save and could not save for college are being told by a 1967 formula that they have to come up with 80-100,000 for college. My house is not even valued at that amount but I am expected to take out 80,000 in loans, at 511.00 for 25 years. That takes me into retirement years. I still have 2 more kids to get into college. I agree with many people, maybe college is not for all, but even STATE colleges are not affordable. I should NOT have to put my child in CC when there are STATE College. In the end some private colleges gave my D scholarships so the price was the same as the STATE college but that does no good either. Who CAN afford 800- 500 per month and still pay the bills? Maybe the questions you are ask are not the right ones. Because just because the number of students that have Bachelor’s degree have gone up does not mean it has not been a burden. I forsee that the number will go down in the next few years with only the Elite getting eduations and the rest of us getting CC degrees and working at MCDONALDS with it…</p>
<p>Yeah Canada, try having medical bills and trying to put your kids through college. You would not even KNOW what that means. Also we wait for tests, surgeries,etc here in US too. The difference is, EVERY doctor visit will bankrupt me. You at least don’t have to worry about whether you keep your home if you get sick…</p>