<p>Public universities make possible a worthy but time consuming goal: working to support oneself through college.</p>
<p>This is not even possible with a private unless the scholarship money is substantial indeed.</p>
<p>I would love to see the stats on how many students at public universities are essentially supporting themselves through college... let's define that as less than $5,000 per year parental contribution. I'm guessing about 50%.</p>
<p>5 years is about the right pace for a student working 20 hours per week during the school year. One simply takes one less class each semester/quarter, and maybe also applies either AP units, or a couple of summer courses.</p>
<p>In many ways, such students do better in the real world for having learned the discipline required to work and study, and also for having learned the value of a dollar early in life.</p>
<p>"Washington State did a study on this and they found students who took at least linear algebra in high school had much higher graduation rates than students who didn't"</p>
<p>Linear Algebra isn't a common high-school course in either algebra or calculus based form and would most likely be offered at a high-school that had the resources to offer far above the usual math courses. So it's not surprising that students taking such a course would do well in college. I'd guess that students taking modern physics in high-school would do well too.</p>
<p>My son started a part-time job in his 2nd year and has had to do a little more juggling with his time. I suggested the part-time job to learn about the working world and as a stepping stone to an internship for next summer or maybe earlier. I think that some amount of work adds to the college experience. Too much, too soon detracts from the ability to get good grades though.</p>
<p>I think if you group schools by type it is not surprising that bootstrap schools tend to actually having increasing time-to-graduate rates because the students are working to pay for themselves. Two years ago I saw a study indicating that it was increasing to 5 or 5.5 years for many.</p>
<p>At our state's public flagship, it's not at all uncommon for kids to come in saying they're "on the 6-year plan," meaning they intend to take 6 years to graduate, and to pay for most or all of it themselves through a combination of term-time, summer, and semester- or year-leave employment. This is typically done with the enthusiastic approval of their parents who in many cases paid their own way through college, and either don't have the disposable income to support their kids, or think it's better for the kids to pay for college themselves because it will "mean more to them" if it's something they had to earn the money to pay for, rather than getting higher education handed to them as a gift. That kind of "up by the bootstraps" work ethic is just a deep part of the culture here in the Upper Midwest. </p>
<p>Problem is, given rising costs, it often proves unrealistic these days to make the "6-year plan" work in as little as 6 years; for a lot of kids it takes 7, or 8, or they get stuck in a job, in debt, possibly with parental responsibilities, and never do get around to finishing. The University is trying to address this with more generous financial aid, including a new guaranteed full-tuition financial aid package for every state resident who is Pell grant-eligible.</p>
<p>"It is very difficult to get teaching certification in 4 years because of all the courses one must take (essentially a double major in education and in your discipline) plus the required semester of student teaching where it is very difficult take much other than student teaching' </p>
<p>Tango 14. Well noted. With teachers certifications there is an increasing pressure to add courses with the intent of improving the quality of teachers. It is driven from the outside via criticism (often justified) of teacher training or by hidden agendas relating to contract schools home schooling or etc. And within education schools increased coursework can be for laudable motives (better training) or less than laudable motivations such as tuition stacking. As an common example of tuition stacking, in many states people with terminal degrees cannot enter school teaching without additional 100-200 level courses. And given the aforementioned pressures on collegiate adjuncts who do have these qualifications some would wish to teach at PS's or charters because they are driven to teach or would finally like to have stable work. </p>
<p>Although substantially upping the quality of existing teacher cert. curriculum doesn't seem to be discussed as much as it should be, which is interesting. But it traps teachers education students into 5-6 year studies with the increased debt that ensures. Often for a end job which tends to pay poorly. </p>
<p>And ironically, the population which does tend to go into primary and secondary teaching tends to come from socioeconomic backgrounds wherein another year of school can be a financial road wreck. Plus coming from these backgrounds it is often necessary for courses to be temporarily dropped, and course tracks delayed for problems related to kids, outside jobs and etc. And as you noted the months of unpaid labor for observations and student teaching compounds these difficulties. </p>
<p>So one of the hapless ironies of it all, is that our current system increasingly requires more course work from potential teachers, with the attendant more years in college and much more debt...which is increasingly ensuring that the population which provides the base from which many teachers are recruited...will not be able to sustain the demands. I wonder who actually benefits from it all?</p>
<p>Agree with post #25.
One problem with working while going to school is that school becomes unpaid work. Hard to rationalize, particularly if the job is at all interesting and your efforts are acknowledged through better compensation and more responsibility.
I've seen something like this in PhD programs here at the University of Chicago. About one in three in the Social Science Division ever get the degree. People "fall in love" with their job. Then there are many examples of people who achieve the PhD, and continue in their student job thereafter. Often without a bump in responsibility or compensation, at least not immediately.</p>
<p>Atana, several studies have shown that the increase in certification requirements benefits two entities- teacher's unions and teaching colleges.</p>
<p>Sadly, the needs of students don't enter into this equation. Our local public HS had to drop AP physics when the last teacher retired. We have hundreds of qualified professionals in the area who would love to teach-- downsized Phd's in Electrical Engineering from IBM and other local corporations.... but taking classes in "pedagogy" and "educational philosophies on inclusion" is not on their radar screen.</p>
<p>My neighbor just finished her teaching certification (second career for her) and reported that her 30 page paper on "managing conflict during dodgeball" was possibly the stupidest thing she's ever had to do since becoming a grownup.</p>
<p>mkm56, completely off topic, but my D's (age 10) school won't do dodge ball because "it makes them aggressive (bad thing) and someone always ends up crying". On the other hand, her fencing coach is a great believer in dodge ball "good for speed and coordination, not to mention making the kids more aggressive (good thing)". I have never seen a single kid cry in the fencing class.</p>
<p>BCEagle91
"Washington State did a study on this and they found students who took at least linear algebra in high school had much higher graduation rates than students who didn't"</p>
<p>"Linear Algebra isn't a common high-school course in either algebra or calculus based form and would most likely be offered at a high-school that had the resources to offer far above the usual math courses. So it's not surprising that students taking such a course would do well in college. I'd guess that students taking modern physics in high-school would do well too."</p>
<p>Our precalculus is often called this. sorry for the confusion. What surprised me what science classes you took didn't have the same impact on graduation rates and I would have expected it to provide similar bump.</p>
<p>Actually Blossom I would agree that the tendency to add more courses does tend to benefit the ed programs and not necessarily students. "Although substantially upping the quality of existing teacher cert. curriculum doesn't seem to be discussed as much as it should be, which is interesting." </p>
<p>And unfortunately, the content of many teachers cert. programs is basically very diluted versions of pyschology, social theory etc, and much less discipline specific content than should be integrated. When I had to teach ed courses about how to apply education and philosophical theory into my specific discipline it was unbelievably frustrating to review salient education texts and find how much therein was outright incorrect or so mired in cute acronyms as to be virtually useless. </p>
<p>But as noted, the tendency to have a teachers cert run 5-6+ years will eventually cause problems for the reasons of cost, time and end result as far as pay in the field. </p>
<p>And unfortunately the loss of AP courses is a perhaps unavoidable consequence of a misplaced eglatarianism (to be charitable) or the outright dumbing down of American students and culture. And alas, it is spreading to higher education, at some state schools those who do try to hold to high curricular standards are often pilloried. For various reasons, including the monetary problem of dipping the enrollment as a result of trying to hold to these same standards. And at some schools holding to high academic standards can be viewed as hostile or elitist (in part due to the unholy invasion of watered down Neo-Marxist theories about social class and the attendant enoblement of victimization status).</p>
<p>Many engineering programs are 5 years for full time students. So graduating in 4 years is nearly impossible. Add the need to attend part time for financial reasons, and inability to get into required courses, and low 4 year rates are quite common. Six year rates are much more meaningful.</p>
<p>Unfair to compare these rates to the elite privates where admission is accompanied by enough financial aid to get through, and the resources are enough to provide the students with their required courses in their planned 4 or 5 year time. </p>
<p>Yes, the most selective privates also have unique student bodies that finish the formula for high graduation rates, but I suspect that many of those taking 5 or 6 years at flagship publics would do just fine academically and would finish in 4 at the top privates.</p>
<p>afan
I spend a lot time with engineering kids. One reason I regularly get together with kids I help with college planning is to assist with course planning. Sometimes you can plan around poor class scheduling at a univerisity.</p>
<p>Twice I've called an Enginnering Dean at my alma mater and said I have X number of kids who can't get into this class and can't graduate on time. Both times they fixed the problem.</p>
<p>Good for you. I am sure the students appreciate your help.</p>
<p>Not to get on my soapbox, but no college should force its students to rely on a non-faculty alum to help them with such a basic thing as getting their courses in so they can graduate.</p>
<p>I do have the impression that this is more of a problem at the larger universities, particularly the state schools, where the combination of size and limited resources puts students in this position.</p>
<p>Why shouldn't my alma matar use my talents? I know the campus inside and out and having a guide help with the maze of large state school helps a lot of kids. You answered your own question my school has limited resources and I don't cost them anything. </p>
<p>I just think that this service should be provided, routinely, to every student, rather than relying on the generosity of alum volunteers. What about the kids who are not fortunate enough to encounter someone like you with expertise to help them in their fields? SOL?</p>
<p>This is the sort of area where even the top flagship state universities fall far behind the elite privates. Add to that the fact that, on average, the students have fewer resources, and parents who are less familiar with higher education, and things that would be handled routinely as a minor issue by an alert faculty advisor at such schools can become huge problems when left to fester because the student does not know what to do, and there is no friendly alum around to help.</p>
<p>I think this is a factor in the relatively lower 4 year graduation rates, and in the lower 6 year rates. Kids slip through the cracks.</p>
<p>Part of what I do can't be provided through regular channels. This may get me in trouble but I can tell kids which profs to have for electives. Get the right cultural anthro prof and all you really need to know is what is the pc answer for each question on a test. Easy A with no stress.</p>
<p>And you are right about the elite privates. They are structured to get you out in four years. In the bears case it started at orientation week and has been continuous.</p>