College is not a commodity!

I think due to the high cost, college these days is practically a luxury for many, even if certain career paths make it a necessity. There are many ways for one to get an education these days, it doesn’t have to come from a traditional brick-and-mortar college. Anyone who is truly interested in learning can learn as much if not more than a college degree’s worth on any subject through MOOCs or books from a public library, internet research, online forums etc. Anyone who wants a real education can read up on the Great Books themselves, or go to one of the few colleges today that continue to teach them as core curriculum.

The combination of massive grade inflation in the humanities and todays’ jumbled mess of class offerings does make you wonder what passes for a college “education” these days. What kind of an education does a kid who major in communications, fashion merchandising, LGBT/gender/ethnic/religious studies, education or business actually receive? Are the myriad classes in class/gender/race “equality” actually teaching anything of value or mere indoctrination by the liberal left? Classes have become more and more esoteric, it’s like teachers are teaching their PhD dissertation on obscure topics rather than teaching anything real. Can anyone tell what the following classes are actually teaching?

  • Quest, Riddle and Resolution in Modernism
  • Realisms and Anti-Realisms
  • Language, Disability, Fiction
  • Transgression and Redemption

So yes, the combination of high cost, poor teaching, grade inflation, meaningless classes and employers’ reliance on that piece of paper known as a college diploma as screening tool for employment does make college a commodity in today’s world. For many people college today is just a very expensive place to party and have a good time for 4 years, learn next to nothing, pick up a diploma then go get a job that is somewhat related to what you didn’t learn in college. Even for many serious kids, college is just a place for vocational training. It takes a lot more diligence on the part of the students as well as the parents to make sure that his/her kid gets a real and meaningful education out of college these days.

The book Higher Education? How colleges are wasting our money and failing our kids by Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus is an excellent read.

“For many people college today is just a very expensive place to party and have a good time for 4 years, learn next to nothing”
-And for very many it is NOT. It is as expensive as one chooses to have, nobody forces one to party, nobody forces one to slack in classes, although there is a theory that one can be very successful just being smart and homework is optional. It is up to each family to decide though.
“Even for many serious kids, college is just a place for vocational training.” - I completely agree with the fact and promoted it to my kids. They should be able to sustain themselves financially after investing 4 years in college or be ready to be accepted at the next education place if their chosen career calls for it. I will not support any kind of other outcome. But growing personally is part of it anyway. If one does not grow personally at college, then they are not ready to be employed or attend a Grad. school. I do not support promoting any “values” at colleges aside from academic knowledge needed to fulfill career dreams. So, it is just a difference in opinion in regard to reasons for being at college. Some send their kids to get married to the “right” people. It is a valid reason chosen by specific family. “A real and meaningful education out of college” have totally different meaning for each family / student, there is no general concept in regard to what it means.

Education is a commodity (a product) to individuals and a public good that benefit the society at large. It is because of its nature of being a public good that government subsidizes higher education and elite schools like ivies dish out enormous amount of financial aid. But to pay top dollars for a liberal art education such as arts history at a second rate state university is certainly a poor purchase on the students/parents’ parts.

But it’s ok to pay top dollar at a second rate state university for a degree in leisure studies or physical education or “business” with a concentration in event management?

@blossom It is a better purchase. I would pursue something more vocational.

What exactly are you doing with a degree in leisure studies that you couldn’t have done without a college degree?

Getting a job that would not have been offered to someone without a college degree, regardless of the level of education necessary actually to perform the job. That’s the signalling function of a college degree; that’s why, as GMTplus7 said, it’s become the new high school diploma; that’s why, for many people, it is a commodity. It’s something you have to pay for (or get someone else to pay for) because your “free” (or expensive, for that matter) high school education is not worth anything in the job market without the additional college-degree confirmation. That’s a stupid state of affairs, but it’s our state of affairs.

By the way – I have a cousin who is in her early 30s. She was mildly learning disabled, and had a tough time in high school. She went to one urban public university, didn’t click, and wound up at a third-tier public directional majoring in hospitality studies. She did well enough to get through and to graduate. Another relative who was a partner at a small marketing firm in a small, provincial city hired her at barely over minimum wage to help with event planning. Fast forward six years. She was good at event planning. Every job she had led to her being poached by a larger, more prestigious employer who paid her substantially more than the previous one. She is living in Manhattan, working for a global ad agency on stuff like Taylor Swift tours, making real money, and loving what she does.

It’s not that her directional public worked any miracles. It just certified that she had enough focus and grit to accomplish an objective, made it possible for other people to give her a hand and to teach her how to do something valuable and productive, and gave her a sense of what direction her talents might take her. We could do all of that more efficiently, but we don’t.

And we haven’t for a long time. Forty years ago, my brother – pretty much the opposite of an intellectual – struggled through high school and college (majoring, to hear him tell it, in exotic sexual encounters), and wound up getting not-quite-an-MBA from an OK specialized business school. He got a job in New York buying and selling non-market commodities. It not only didn’t require him to use anything he had learned in business school, it didn’t require him to know anything he had learned since he turned 10, except for things he learned on the job. He went three or four years without losing money on a trade; he became a partner in the firm and got rich. The only thing he needed his degrees for was looking qualified for an interview, and that was everything.

These anecdotes are all heartwarming but kind of prove my point… would any of these people have been less successful at their careers- in due time- had they majored in art history or some other much maligned (on CC) academic discipline vs. what they actually DID study?

Is there something magical about these non-academic vocational majors (event planning being a good example) as a signaling device that majoring in comparative literature or philosophy can’t do just as well? And then society benefits from having an educated adult enter the workplace… vs. the VERY cynical “tuition grubbing” which takes place when an academic institution figures out how to charge money for a non-academic program like event planning???

I’ve interviewed dozens of young grads from these programs and it’s sad. They’ve got a Bachelor’s degree. They’ve never written a research paper. They’ve never used primary sources to develop or present an argument. They haven’t taken math beyond “statistics for the business person” which is heavy on theory and involves no ability to calculate.

I can’t imagine encouraging a kid to take a “lite degree” as a better path towards a career. Remember in 1999 and 2000 when all those colleges launched degrees in E-commerce? And all those kids graduated AFTER the tech bust and couldn’t find a job for love or money? I’ve got to believe that most of them felt cheated that their parents and the other adults in their lives didn’t encourage them to get an actual academic degree instead of the flavor du jour.

But it’s fun to bash the liberal arts on CC where every kid is destined for STEM (preferably medical school) or else is doomed to a career wearing a fast food uniform.

The STEM obsession makes me laugh. When I graduated from HS in the 80 it was all about being a business major and/or getting an MBA as the “golden ticket” to success, and STEM reminds me of that mentality. I’m not a big believer in “golden tickets” but then again, I am a humanities major (who has had jobs in my field since I graduated 25 years ago) it’s my husband with the MBA who has been “downsized” twice in his career. There is no “golden ticket” so you might as well do what you love

We are in a free market here, so everybody decides how they spend and if they spend and how much and what they buy for it (yes, we buy college education, there is no other way to say it, even if it is tuition free). What is a focus of discussion here? Everybody is doing what is determine by them to be a proper choice, and nothing else, we CHOOSE, not our friends, not the people who we hate or love, not government (not yet!). There is no right or wrong here, there is NO label that correctly or incorrectly describes what it is, it is DIFFERENT for each family. One reason I do not like reading books and articles and other media as all of them tend to attach labels to everything and everybody. Who really cares and how one should be able to memorize all these labels?

As an educator, I totally agree with this article.

The value of a degree isn’t in the piece of paper, but in the efforts and engagement of the student.

I hate how we try to pigeon hole kids in HS and college into one type of learning for “career readiness”. The purpose of an education is to learn - not vocational training

It is easier to think of the value of “education” in college when one is a tenured professor than a parent looking to spend a substantial amount of money on that education. It is also not clear how many professors are really interested in “awakening” their students.

College can be both a great learning experience and preparation for the job market. A kid can major in a hard science or accounting and still take interesting courses that require research, writing and thinking. A kid that majors in engineering is no less educated than one that majors in history - the focus is different but the depth of learning is similar. Not every science or engineering major is a vocational course.

Efforts and engagement are subjective if they are not measured by some common type of measurements. The grades and the actual “piece of paper” will tell the rest of the world what this student is done in 4 years of his college life. There are other facts that may be stated on application / resume. However, not having that “piece of paper” and having all Ds (as an extreme example) on the transcript will tell a totally different story than having a piece of paper and / or having all As on the transcript.

Mindfully, you are a great exception to this if these 2 extreme examples (and many more realistic ones that happen to be in between) do NOT tell you about the efforts and engagement of the student.

Anything with a price tag is a commodity.

Better tell that to all of the college students who would not be in college if they did not think it would upgrade their job and career prospects compared to what they can find as high school graduates. This includes liberal arts majors like:

  • biology majors with pre-med aspirations
  • political science and English majors with pre-law aspirations
  • math and statistics majors aiming for actuarial jobs
  • economics majors aiming for finance and business jobs
  • students of all majors looking for the bachelor's degree because of increasing credentialism in the job market

And yet- something I often come across (here on cc and in my life as an educator) are complaints about having to take courses outside of area of interest/major. So many students dread Gen Eds (and I get disliking a required course- but out of an entire dept…history, science, English, philosophy- you can’t find one course offering that looks interesting?) as a “waste of time” rather than an opportunity to explore. And college is one of the last times in a young person’s life where they can spend time on that kind of stuff- the real world with work and deadlines and bills is right around the corner.

I get it about paying- I am paying for NYU right now- and for an arts major- so you can see I am not coming from the viewpoint most often expressed on this forum. And I certainly see my tuition as an investment - but one in my child, not a given career. Our choice in college was a deliberate decision to give her the chance to explore her passions (both known and unknown) for the next four years. Any family can do this anyway they want- I am just trying to represent a different point of view that what I have seen recently

Here is my and my H. examples. Neither of us needed an MBA for our jobs. But both of us got it. The reason? Simply because both employers paid for it. However, I have discovered (multiple times) that having MBA on my resume increased my chances of finding another employment in very economically depressed city. So, what do you call my MBA? What label you attach to it? Does it matter to me? Nope, I do not care!
Of course I invested ton of times and some money (textbooks) into my Grad. school and, of course it paid off. Well, as far as my H. is concerned, I just mentioned few times (bragging!), that BOTH of us have an MBA and it made him feel good. Benefit nonetheless. Well, he is doing our finances, but I do not think that his MBA in Finance has anything to do with it, nobody needs an MBA to file a tax return and FASFA.

No, straight Ds tell me something. But you have to work pretty hard today to get those!

My point wasn’t that grades mean nothing - of course they do.

But I regularly run into students who don’t seem to have any interest in learning. They don’t come to lecture. They don’t show up for labs. They only want to know what is on the test, so they can pass.

In contrast, I also encounter students who show up, who ask questions in lecture, who come to hear guest speakers, who volunteer for teaching award committees, and who lead student societies. It’s much easier to write letters of recommendation for these students, as opposed to the former group.

There are all kinds of class and political issues swirling around this question that we are really not discussing (and probably shouldn’t here).

In my personal life, I, too, adhere to the education-for-its-own-sake credo. Anyone who knows me, even those of you who only know me online, knows that’s how I was raised, how I have lived, what I wanted for my kids. It’s a beautiful idea. But it has some dark edges.

The system we have was originally developed as a way to train the wealthy elite and the merely affluent bourgeoisie (mainly), along with a smattering of talented poor, for managerial and professional roles. During that magical period between the end of WWII and the mid/late 60s, when the global economy was expanding rapidly and the U.S. faced no effective global competition, access to college (and government subsidies of college) increased exponentially, but did not outstrip the baby-boom-fueled demands of the economy for managers, technicians, and professionals. At some point, however, the lines crossed, and colleges started certifying graduates as qualified for positions that no longer existed in sufficient quantity to absorb the graduates. Because that also corresponded in a radical decline in the quality of high school degrees as proof of the graduate’s basic skill set, a college degree increasingly became a prerequisite for all kinds of jobs that did not really require more than a high school education (at a high school that actually educated its students). So, on average, a college degree became less reliable as an indicator of who belonged in the managerial/professional class, but it retained its strong comparative advantage over a high school degree in terms of access to jobs and status.

Meanwhile, fueled in part – but I think not exclusively – by the governmental subsidies, colleges have vastly expanded their invested capital and their costs. College tuition charges have vastly outpaced inflation, although some of that is no doubt price discrimination (charging different people different prices for the same goods or services, based on the different customers’ different ability and willingness to pay). It would be interesting to know the extent to which real tuition, net of financial aid and scholarships, has outpaced inflation.

Educatio gratia educatis functioned extremely well from the Middle Ages forward as a strategy for nurturing and polishing elites, and helping them communicate better among themselves, in a world where most actual job training was provided or financed by the employer. It still works that way. Effectively, it is the slogan and hallmark of the elite layer of the education system which continues to apply gild and gloss to a set of students who, by dint of their wealth, connections, or sheer talent, are still going to find employers willing to pay to train them. But our system has at least a few other layers, some of which coexist in the same institutions with the elite model. One is a layer of advanced vocational training (for roles like engineers, nurses, trainers, accountants, teachers, soldiers), one is bare qualification for graduate professional training (ask MiamiDAP about this), and another is simply remedial high school, certifying that whoever completes it is competent at reading, arithmetic, basic writing, and task completion in general, and has at least half a clue about what’s going on in the larger world.

I would love to see a Marxian historian take on the development of modern higher education. There’s a narrative to be unearthed out there, in which the whole thing is a structure to off-load training costs from firms and their investors to workers, and to undermine class consciousness and collective bargaining by pseudo-professionalization of jobs.

My entire college education, at full price, cost only just about one year’s salary for the job I could have gotten upon graduation. At that price, education for its own sake is an affordable luxury. Today, though, the full cost of a bachelor’s degree can be four, five, six times the median annual salary of graduates (and much more for below-median graduates . . . plus there’s a much bigger range in what new graduates receive). There aren’t enough elite jobs available to absorb the volume of kids being qualified for them. The education-for-its-own-sake system is not sustainable beyond a thin level of elite institutions.

So of course higher education is going to be commoditized. Going to Harvard and getting a golden ticket to the Establishment Ball isn’t a commodity, but if the only function college is serving is standing between a student and medical school admission, or an accountancy board exam, much less proving that the graduate can read, write, and add, then people are going to be asking “what’s the least I have to pay for that,” and “what good is this other stuff doing me?”