Bill to mandate disclosure of earnings and graduation rates by major

Parent Cafe
381

<p>It’s easy to take shots at Sports Management majors (as I did above), which frankly sounds preposterous. On the other hand, my wife – a Yale summa double-major in fairly traditional stuff – regularly complains that no one ever told her about Cornell’s School of Hotel Management when she was a kid. She says she would have loved to have gone there, and would probably have had a very satisfying career in that field. (And she’s right about that. It would have suited her talents and her tastes, if not her passion for social justice and Making The World A Better Place.) And I have a young cousin with lifelong learning disabilities who has turned a directional-public Leisure Management degree into a very well-paid career as an event planner. </p>

<p>My issue with “Hotel Management” or “Sports Management” isn’t so much that they are niche majors (or quasi-professional majors) as that they are too broad to give anyone the experience of depth of knowledge. You look at all sorts of different areas of knowledge through one lens, and that one lens gives you a sort of focus, but you are still essentially dabbling in many fields without diving deep in any of them: management (psychology, sociology of organizations), economics, finance, marketing, law, architecture, city planning . . . . (that’s for Hotel Management, not Sports). The fact is, however, that a competent person, with a little experience, should not have a lot of trouble translating Hotel Management into Steel Rolling Plant Management or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.</p>

382

<h1>380</h1>

<p>I certainly understand what you are saying, but felt even more strongly. There were some on-going soul-searching debates over whether it was justified for parents to forbid a child majoring in engineering.</p>

383

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not necessarily a function of greed, Beliavsky. It’s that — and this is a world that you have a hard time envisioning, to be sure – there are things that add beauty and meaning to life that aren’t about money. </p>

<p>As an example, my alma mater, a highly selective school, is well known for its first-rate theater and music programs. Now, the majority of students graduating in those programs aren’t going to make the same as the students headed to medical school, law school, the engineering world, or Wall Street, of which there are also plenty at this school. </p>

<p>If you were to compare this school to a similarly situated school that doesn’t have top arts programs, the other school might come out ahead because more people are making the medical/law/engineering/Wall Street salaries. But so what? Would you actually think it preferable to go to a school where everyone does the same thing uniformly, as opposed to a school where there are people who love the arts and want to practice them? I think it’s terrific when I catch up with my classmates - one of them is a costume designer on Broadway who has won awards, she doesn’t make what the Wall Street gang does, but who cares? I can think of nothing more dreadful than to have a class reunion where everyone was in the same 5 or so most-lucrative careers that they chose because of their lucrativeness. Yawn. </p>

<p>I recognize, of course, that this is falling on deaf ears since you don’t see much value in anything other than concrete things and dollar bills in the bank. But nonetheless, I see more to life.</p>

384

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, yeah, duh. Which can lead to a happier life EVEN IF LESS MONEY IS MADE at the back end. An amazing concept, isn’t it?</p>

385

<p>Ease up. You’re mauling the living hell out of that strawman, and I may need it for an argument somewhere else in the internet.</p>

386

<p>Parents:</p>

<p>I understand that many majors and professional choices are valuable. But this is not the core of the question here. As a student, I do want to have the freedom to choose less profitable careers if I feel like. If I want to be a costume designer… fine. But I want to do that knowing very well what my future prospects are. </p>

<p>Students still can choose to major in Theater, English, Sociology, etc… Because they like it/want it… Not because they were misled.</p>

<p>I do not understand why some people on this thread seem to be afraid that disclosing average earnings of some majors will discourage students to pursue said majors. Why would anyone think that it is a good idea to keeps students in the dark? </p>

<p>Again, this is not about the value of a chosen career. This is about enabling students make informed choice about their chosen careers.</p>

<p>And please, let us stop posting those strawmen examples of top-school graduates with 2350 SATs who graduate with a degree in Sociology and are now successful. We know that this is more a function of the school brand name than the major they chose. We know that English, Sociology, Theater, x_Studies, etc. from top schools can get a job at McKinsey. But this is not true for every school.</p>

<p>Below top-tier schools, the choice of one’s major is very important in shaping the students’ future professional careers.</p>

387

<p>inpersonal, while I agree with you that in a perfect world, your statement would be absolutely the end of this, the truth is that there are governors who are attempting to potentially defund certain majors based on “employment” results.</p>

<p>So, while you may think the conversation is merely about the relative value some of us place on unmeasurable employment numbers for humanities majors, what we are inadvertently discussing is potential policy decisions based on this questionably useful data.</p>

<p>And, while you may see it as strawmen, and while some may be using examples of highly educated graduates, most of the parents who post on here happen to be highly educated and the type to be interested in education, so that is your sample on this site. However, I can confidently say that I know many liberal arts majors from bigstateu’s who are doing quite well, thankyouverymuch, and some engineers who are having a hard time finding work.</p>

<p>In the end, what some of us are saying is simply that looking at a college education as job training is one perspective. But, what we know, unequivocally, is that education is so much more than that, and the wider implications of focusing our university systems on employment results is really missing the point of what an excellent education should and does give the student: the ability to think well and to apply that ability to think well in every area of his or her life, including but not limited to the professions.</p>

<p>Every single writer who writes that there are “too many people” pursuing useless degrees has a child who is or will be one day pursuing that degree. The educated class knows this, and the need for the instant gratification of a job payoff to “prove” the value of an education is the real strawman in the conversation about the value of post secondary work.</p>

<p>If you want to talk about college costing “too much,” right now, I will go there with you, but if you want to tell me we can value the cost of college based on future employment opportunities, I will tell you college is not vocational school. It is not trade school, and it never was.</p>

388

<p>ok, at the risk of repeating what has probably been stated several times in the previous 25 pages of replies, if this information is otherwise not available, but you pass a law that requires the release of:</p>

<p>**
earnings and graduation rates by major **</p>

<p>that will benefit students how? By influencing them to choose a major with higher earnings and better graduation rates than the major they were otherwise contemplating?</p>

<p>But maybe the earnings and graduation rates are also a function of the students themselves, and an unqualified student who chooses a major based on the data will only lower the earnings average for that major and/or reduce the graduation rate for that major.</p>

389

<p>

</p>

<p>Students currently attracted to pre-professional or other majors due to perceived job prospects (as opposed to very strong intellectual interest in the subject) may pause if the job prospects for those majors are not as good as perceived.</p>

<p>For example, how many students and parents believe that all STEM majors have good job prospects, so the student intends to major in biology, or is pushed by the parent to major in biology, even if the student’s strongest intellectual interests are in some H/SS field?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It is for the two thirds of bachelor’s degree graduates who majored in obviously pre-professional majors. Also, many of the liberal arts graduates chose their majors for pre-professional reasons (e.g. math/statistics/economics for finance jobs, various majors as perceived to be good for pre-med, pre-law, etc.).</p>

<p>The idea that pre-professional preparation and intellectual exploration are necessarily mutually exclusive is an odd one, to say the least.</p>

390

<p>

</p>

<p>I never said mutually exclusive. IN fact, I said, “including”</p>

<p>To me, the idea that the measure of the value of an education can be based on dubiously useful statistics, basically comparing apples to bananas, is an odd one.</p>

<p>But, it is brought about by the increasing cost of college. I understand this.</p>

391

<p>"earnings and graduation rates by major </p>

<p>that will benefit students how? By influencing them to choose a major with higher earnings and better graduation rates than the major they were otherwise contemplating?</p>

<p>But maybe the earnings and graduation rates are also a function of the students themselves, and an unqualified student who chooses a major based on the data will only lower the earnings average for that major and/or reduce the graduation rate for that major."</p>

<p>I still think that is better to have the information… Very likely, in the short run having an influx of students will change the statistics, but then they will end up converging to where they need to be, because students will drop from that major if prospects become worse.</p>

<p>Regarding state funding, I do not go to a state school, but my family does pay taxes. I do not think that it is necessarily a bad policy if a state decides to adjust support, shifting money to programs that are more successful according to the metrics that the state believes to be important. I can totally see graduation rates, for instance, as a very important metric for the states. </p>

<p>Now that I think more, this is perhaps the reason some people are against transparency. They want to keep the resources they have, regardless of productivity. I know by own experience that some departments are more into attracting students than others. The most <em>student needy</em> departments offer free pizza, drinks, etc. to those who attend their info sessions, while some other departments seem to always have a lot of students regardless.</p>

392

<p>So, you’re basically advocating that my full pay kids should have access to all sorts of education that middle class and impoverished kids don’t have? </p>

<p>I so completely disagree that this is a good use of my considerable tax dollars.</p>

393

<p>“So, you’re basically advocating that my full pay kids should have access to all sorts of education that middle class and impoverished kids don’t have?” </p>

<p>Although you are pushing too far, Poetgril, I am indeed advocating what you say. I do not think that it is the role of the government to fund “all sorts of studies”.</p>

<p>Governments make decisions about priorities all the time. Why states fund college education? Because it is a public good. The moment the ROI is not there, why should the government invest taxpayer dollars? Just so that other kids can pursue the same major that your kids do? No matter what? What if you send your kids to Monaco to study Royal Hospitality? Should the federal/state government give money to any in-state student who wants to do the same by taking a 4-year study abroad?</p>

<p>I believe it is good government to prioritize an area of study/department that graduates students in 4 years, with marketable/in-demand/strategic skills vs. an area of study/department that graduates students in 6 years with limited market skills.</p>

<p>Think about what Obama said in the SOU this week. How did he justify America’s investment in education, science, and technology? To prepare America for the “jobs of the future”, or to make us all equal and able to take all sorts of studies that well-to-do kids can take.</p>

<p>(Sorry, I know that quoting Obama and double-quoting your previous post will be perceived as somewhat rude and antagonistic. I do not want to fight. I do appreciate the Parents forum and everyone who participates here, but I think my post makes my ideas clear now).</p>

394

<p>

</p>

<p>A caution would be that job markets can shift a lot faster than department capacities are changed. Indeed, in the four years it takes a student to complete a bachelor’s degree, the hot field may have gone cold (though some areas seem to be cold all the time). Indeed, Texas A&M’s petroleum engineering department sent a letter to prospective students on the subject: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/1458449-concerning-letter-tamu-pete-department.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/1458449-concerning-letter-tamu-pete-department.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

395

<p>

</p>

<p>Public schools have art and music classes and sports teams, and it is difficult to calculate an ROI on these activities. Community colleges and recreation departments have continuing education classes for adults that are not job-related. Public libraries stock books that people read for pleasure. How much the government should subsidize educational and cultural programs with no direct economic payoff can be debated, but there is widespread support for having art and music classes in schools and for public libraries.</p>

396

<p>

</p>

<p>Some would argue that beneficial or worthwhile endeavors that do not yield a concrete ROI should be precisely the things the government should subsidize for the general wellbeing and improvement of society. If there is money to made out of something, there will never be any shortage of private sector investors willing to fund it. The government does not need to do so.</p>

397

<p>I agree with ucbalumnus in that using the funding-by-desirable-major tactic could boomerang back in a U.'s face. Especially for a large institution, with so many 18-year-olds coming in not knowing whattheheck they want to do in their life, an allure of the college itself is the luxury of switching gears from one well-funded major to another well-funded major.</p>

398

<p>Some of the information to aid students in making decisions about where to continue their education is already out there.
Information about net tuition costs, how much students typically borrow, graduation rates, loan default rates is available now.</p>

<p>[College</a> Scorecard | The White House](<a href=“Priorities | The White House”>Priorities | The White House)</p>

<p>Information about types of jobs graduates find and their salary, is coming.</p>

399

<p>How well I remember the dot com boom- when many colleges quickly put into place a Major in E-commerce or Internet studies or some such things. Their graduates ended up with degrees that absolutely could not be monetized- by the time they graduated with their specialty degrees the boom had gone to bust. The ones who had enough comp sci classes eventually were fine; the ones who had taken an integrated media type curriculum were really stuck. They have since re-tooled themselves as Social Media experts- but frankly, there is no degree program required to get a job in Social Media.</p>

<p>So there are dangers in this flavor of the month business. But carry on; apparently we all still believe that nobody can tease out that Neurosurgeons make more than Speech Therapists without a government mandate to tell us so.</p>

400

<p>something I was thinking about after reading the above College Scorecard link.</p>

<p>Another example of data that can be misleading. It lists the default rate of students 3 years post graduation. I know if my child was on the verge of defaulting, as the parent I would help out as best I could. So in other words, useless data.</p>

<p>I know one doctor friend is paying his sons law school debt and the debt is substantial, 140,000. Young man passed the bar 3 years ago, unable to get a job, is working, but I would put him in the working poor category as far as wages go.</p>