<p>
</p>
<p>I posted about it in that topic, but that 26% number refers to people who were deemed college ready in every subject. As we do not all study every subject, it’s rather misleading. There are people with 28 and 29 composite scores who fail (less than the college ready number) one subject. To claim that person is not college ready is rather disingenuous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If only we could go back a few decades to mostly union, pre-NAFTA (etc…) jobs that didn’t require college degrees and also paid enough money to support a family.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But is it due to too many students on financial aid (as these threads usually argue about), or too many lower achieving students from wealthy families who pay list price, thus giving colleges an incentive to raise list prices?</p>
<p>the problem isn’t too many kids going to college. </p>
<p>problem 1. Not having any money to go to college w/o racking up debt. Too many parents who buy the latest game systems, sneakers and excessive xmas gifts but don’t save for the future (theirs or the kids).</p>
<p>problem 2. people who have more children than they could possibly save enough money to educate.</p>
<p>problem 3. students who fail to get a degree in an area that is in need of people (tech, science) AND/OR they are too picky about what job they will take upon graduation (my son’s degrees are in history/politics - he is in a sales position for a tech company)</p>
<p>problem 4. Parents and students with unrealistic expectations and grandiose dreams</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not all sciences are in high employment demand.</p>
<p>
Both, but in a free country you can’t stop the wealthy from overpaying for college and from sending their unqualified offspring to college at all, while you can stop the taxpayer from doing so.</p>
<p>The Real Reason College Costs So Much … is because they CAN. </p>
<p>It’s a market, if people are willing to pay, colleges would charge them.</p>
<p>I’ve heard an interesting discussion in Europe about college education.</p>
<p>College education is important for society … to MASK unemployment. </p>
<p>If kids won’t be in college - you would have plenty of angry youth on the streets demanding social change. Instead, rebellious 20th are spending time and energy competing with each other to “get degree”. By the time they realize that they are still unemployed, they are older, not that rebellious, not believing in social change anymore.</p>
<p>Colleges act a fuse, to redirect youth energy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, after one eliminates financial aid for students from low SES families, then college attendance and graduation will become even more of a mark of inherited SES rather than actual achievement and merit than it already is. Even those who make it through mainly on inherited SES might not like the idea of losing any type of veneer of merit that comes with college attendance and graduation.</p>
<p>I agree with dietz on the trade track, and californiaaa: interesting post. College does keep the young off the streets so to speak. First they are locked in high school buildings and then they are sequestered on campuses. At the other end of life, we have independent and assisted living communities (I happen to be dealing with a parent entering one this week).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, it has long been the case that, in terms of social class, blue collar workers tend to be looked down upon, even if the blue collar jobs are more skilled and better paid than some white collar jobs. It has been observed that when people have upward or downward mobility relative to their parents, they may go from blue->blue, white->white, or blue->white with respect to what type of job, but less commonly go white->blue. Indeed, the reaction of lower paid white collar workers when hearing that some blue collar jobs pay very well is often one of resentment that a “lowly” blue collar worker earns more than they do, rather than one of “what do I need to do to get that job?”.</p>
<p>The result is that going to college for a bachelor’s degree in an attempt to climb up the white collar job latter is generally seen as a preferable option to trade school or community college to learn the skills for the higher paying blue collar jobs – especially for those from white collar family backgrounds.</p>
<p>To put #33 and the “trade track” in real terms…</p>
<p>What would you say if your kid, doing reasonably well in high school, decided that s/he wanted to go to community college to prepare for a skilled trade like electrician, plumber, auto/truck/aircraft mechanic, machinist, welder, locksmith, longshore worker, etc.? What about skilled services like police officer, firefighter, military?</p>
<p>I am really happy with my kid’s choice. This child was at an artsy, somewhat well-known LAC and came home to do a certificate program, yes, for a trade, at CC. She is mature and hardworking and an interesting, self-confident person. My other two went to Ivies and aren’t any happier.</p>
<p>I think we should think about college students in terms of the goals they have for their studies, in terms of career versus “learning for learning’s sake.” So arts, humanities and the sciences studied out of interest in the subject and desire to develop that interest, would be one track. This could be called the academic or intellectual track. Some of these students would stay in academia for longer periods of time, I suppose, preferably with funding and TA positions. But this kind of background used to be considered the best preparation for higher level careers and for post-grad study of any kind.</p>
<p>Engineering, business, nursing, physical therapy, counseling, social work, accounting and any other academic field geared to a particular vocation would be another track, similar to training for a trade. Perhaps this could be called the “professional” track since "vocational "has what are apparently distasteful blue collar implications. (Actually, some undergrad business majors would be better off financially training to be a plumber or electrician.)</p>
<p>Maybe we need new terminology to make these distinctions. The disdain for art history or other liberal arts that often appears on this forum, might become irrelevant with this new arrangement of college studies; majors leading directly to a job/career would also gain some clarity and dignity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard et al. have often said that they fill their classes many times over with the same quality of students that they currently accept. This suggests that they could eliminate financial aid and pick students from a smaller and more affluent applicant pool that would still be as good as their current students. Furthermore, if they used the savings in eliminating need-based aid to reduce the list price, fewer students would need such aid, and there would be some incremental applications from students from high-income families that are currently scared off by the list price. I’m not saying that Harvard should eliminate financial aid, just that it could reduce it while still maintaining quality.</p>
<p>Looking at higher education more broadly, reducing federal grants and subsidized loans would exert downward pressure on college costs, so the decline in college attendance would be less than a static analysis suggests. Federally guaranteed loans have largely crowded out private lenders, who would return as federal loans were scaled back. In a deregulated market private lenders would price loans based on a student’s academic record, college attended, college major, and college grades (for loans after the freshman year). The market would signal who is “college material”, and it would reward/punish students who do well/poorly once they start college. Parents who are more likely to continue paying for college when their children are earning A’s rather than C’s behave in the same way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be true of Harvard today, but most schools would likely become more like the Harvard of yesteryear, when most students were taken from the SES-elite (by preferring those from the SES-elite boarding schools) with academics being secondary. The Harvard of yesteryear took a few academic top achievers to keep up the appearance of academic eliteness, but the non-Harvards would not have to do that. In other words, education at many universities back then was more of a mark of inherited SES than of actual academic achievement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Family income is already a stronger predictor of attending a selective college than actual academic achievement is, so elimination of college financial aid would tip the market even more toward defining “college material” as meaning “coming from a wealthy family” over actual academic achievement.</p>
<p>“What would you say if your kid, doing reasonably well in high school, decided that s/he wanted to go to community college to prepare for a skilled trade like electrician, plumber, auto/truck/aircraft mechanic, machinist, welder, locksmith, longshore worker, etc.? What about skilled services like police officer, firefighter, military?”</p>
<p>That’s great. Now where did I put that cruise brochure. Call the kitchen remodel folks I have been stringing along for years.</p>
<h1>34,35</h1>
<p>If my kid expressed an interest/desire to learn a trade I would encourage them to pursue that course of action. I would also encourage them to take some classes at the CC level involving accounting, finance, business management etc. so that they would have a background in the ‘office’ portion of that trade.</p>
<p>I have a nephew who went to Wyotech, his two sisters went to UC’s. The bio major just started a grad program at the age of 28 and will incur further debt, the liberal arts major manages by taking the occasional short term job and working as a counselor during the summer camp season. The Wyotech grad…owns a house, is married and has a young son. He is supporting himself and his family quite nicely. Plus, he can fix just about anything that breaks in his own home.</p>
<p>So, this path would not break my heart. I know how much we pay our mechanic. Oh, and he has weekends off.</p>
<p>I would be delighted. We need tradespeople to keep things working/moving along. I know lots of people who went to a trades school, not college and are doing very well for themselves and their families. They are always in demand. Not everyone is cut out for college and working in an office.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ashland University may be doing what I suggest:</p>
<p>[Ashland</a> University slashes 2014 tuition by $10,000
The Columbus Dispatch
August 28, 2013](<a href=“http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2013/08/27/Ashland_University_lowers_tuition_.html]Ashland”>http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2013/08/27/Ashland_University_lowers_tuition_.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>JC Penny found that their customers prefer sales and coupons to everyday low pricing. College students (and/or their families) might prefer it the other way around. Ashland is already giving 96% of its freshman class an average of over $17k in institutional grants and aid as of the 2011 entering class, so it’s a JC Penny-like problem to figure out what is going to work better for your customer base.</p>
<p>Not exactly an issue for Harvard et al.</p>