Future of College Tuition post Covid 19

[Clepper43]

This is an interesting read - I watched another program commenting on how Harvard has gone online this fall but "tuition remains the same." People are going to figure out there seems to be an even clearer need to question the system.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/opini...virus.html

Quote: "...(it) means more than just making college free or inexpensive for most students. It means re-evaluating the place that higher education occupies in our society."

[ss20ts]

I live in a state with a massive public university system. We are taxed to pay for it. There's still tuition and fees. The fees increase every year. Tuition now increases annually. All of those buildings on campus aren't cheap to build, maintain, heat, or cool. Insurance policies for the buildings alone is a small fortune.

I live in the highest taxed state in the nation. We can't afford to pay more in taxes. We need our incomes to survive. The cost of living isn't decreasing. It's skyrocketing. Wages are not keeping up with the cost of living increases at all.

There's a tier 2 college down the street from me. Tuition and fees is about $60K per year. They do have lovely programs. But what is a 22 year old going to do with a degree in philosophy? History? English? Used to be able to land a journalism career.....well we know how print media is doing. History students can go on to earn a master's in education and become history teachers, but where? How many teachers does a nation need? Many of these universities and colleges need to really reconsider what programs they are offering. Why are so many programs useless in life? The kid with a philosophy degree with a minor in dead languages is going to be struggling until they wake up and get a MBA or IT degree. If you're going to get a degree, get one in a field where you can actually get a job. And yes that college down the street from me actually does have a minor in dead languages. WHY????

I do believe that COVID is going to make drastic changes to higher education. Over the next few years, many schools will close. There were already many colleges that weren't fiscally sound and this just pushed them over the edge faster. Those that survive are going to have to reimagine themselves....think like Walt Disney...use your imagination for a future. Get rid of the minors in dead languages. Get rid of degrees that don't provide students an opportunity for a career. Join the world in the 21st century. Look to the future. What will future jobs be? Far more in IT will be happening. IT is growing in ways people in general never imagined. It's so much more than just computer programming today. It's becoming a digital world and colleges who want to survive are going to have to join the digital world not the dead languages world.

[rachel83az]

English is actually still a very good option for some people. You won't get anything as glamorous as journalism, but there are some sectors where writers are actually in high demand and there aren't enough people. If it weren't for that pesky CLEP being needed, I'd probably get an English degree at TESU.

That said, schools do need to do better at keeping up with the times. Some of them have been. Others, not so much. It's going to be interesting to see how all this plays out over the next few years.

[monchevy]

Get rid of stupid degree requirements that just duplicate what you already passed in high school, especially if your career or career path includes none of those subjects. I've built a decades-long career as an editor on sheer grit (I'm a New Yorker, it's what we do) and besides finances, the main reason I was never able to get a degree even as an adult is the pointless algebra requirement. I barely passed it in high school, I'd never pass it again, and I shouldn't have to. I'm in my 50s, I think I'd know by now if I really needed all these "required" courses and their mumbo-jumbo formulas.

College needs to follow more of the competency-based model, or be more career oriented. It's bad enough that kids come off four years of required courses only to find that they need to go into debt just to take them all again. But for working adults, you shouldn't be forcing me to take algebra, and you shouldn't be asking for my HS transcript from 1981. I get that "it's always been done that way," but it needs to change.

[rachel83az]

I think the biggest problem with getting rid of those degree requirements is that American students often graduate HS with minimal skills in the general education requirements area. Algebra is actually useful to daily life and many people use it without realizing it. But the way it's taught in school is awful.

European schools do not have the general education requirements. But, in many countries, an American doesn't even technically count as being eligible for university even if they graduated from an American high school. That's how poor the education system is. The whole thing needs an overhaul, not just the university system.

[Johann]

The kid with a philosophy degree with a minor in dead languages is going to be struggling until they wake up and get a MBA or IT degree. If you're going to get a degree, get one in a field where you can actually get a job. And yes that college down the street from me actually does have a minor in dead languages. WHY????

Get rid of the minors in dead languages.  It's becoming a digital world and colleges who want to survive are going to have to join the digital world not the dead languages world.

OK - that's four times. I get it. You don't like dead languages. I do. I mainly studied live ones (several) in College and University as a middle-aged adult, but I had five years of Latin before I got there. 60 years since my last Latin class, I still remember a lot of it. I enjoyed it. One of my best experiences. Why? Several reasons:

(1) Over half of English is derived from Latin - it helps to know where words came from. Written and spoken English will be better today for that knowledge. You can sound like you really know something - even when you don't, sometimes. That's a skill that could be worth having....

(2) Latin gives one an iron-like grasp of grammar. It's a lasting framework that can be applied to many other languages. The system might not be identical but you can see how things work VERY quickly.  Saves a lot of time, particularly if you're going on to learn half a dozen or more languages.

(3) There is a danger. Learning a dead language often gives you an appetite for more dead languages. On my own, I managed to learn a bit of Koine (New Testament Greek) and some Anglo Saxon. I got some exposure to Old and Medieval French in University. No, I never made a dime from it - but it has given me more pleasure than other studies that did make me money. Some things I studied for money - others for pleasure. I was 40-odd, and it was my money, so.... Also, I was never an English teacher, but I'd not have much confidence in one who didn't know at least something of those now-dead languages and how they influenced the one he/she teaches today. I was fortunate to have some English teachers who DID know Latin, Greek, Anglo-Saxon and other components of English. Their knowledge showed and was of benefit (at least I thought) to students.

(4) Not everyone should have to take dead languages. Not everyone should have to take algebra either - though I'll admit it has useful applications that dead languages don't. But they need to be there for people who want - or think they need - to study them. Not everyone is cut out for a career in IT.

(5) Most (not all) European languages are of Indo-European origin. It's very interesting, if you have a few words of Sanskrit, to see how the different branches of the Indo-European tree gave rise to the languages spoken today. And right, you likely won't make any money from it, but it can be a very pleasurable and truly mind-expanding experience.

I like dead languages; I like living ones too. I even like computer languages - they have vocabulary and syntax as well. I like Ruby, Python, JavaScript, C and its variants. All good. Hey, maybe I should try some DEAD programming languages! Algol, APL, GW-BASIC maybe? Well, "De gustibus non est disputandum," as the Latin saying goes. No accounting for tastes. It was a thought....

[ss20ts]

The kid with a philosophy degree with a minor in dead languages is going to be struggling until they wake up and get a MBA or IT degree. If you're going to get a degree, get one in a field where you can actually get a job. And yes that college down the street from me actually does have a minor in dead languages. WHY????

Get rid of the minors in dead languages.  It's becoming a digital world and colleges who want to survive are going to have to join the digital world not the dead languages world.

OK - that's four times. I get it. You don't like dead languages. I do. I mainly studied live ones (several) in College and University as a middle-aged adult, but I had five years of Latin before I got there. 60 years since my last Latin class, I still remember a lot of it. I enjoyed it. One of my best experiences. Why? Several reasons:

(1) Over half of English is derived from Latin - it helps to know where words came from. Written and spoken English will be better today for that knowledge. You can sound like you really know something - even when you don't, sometimes. That's a skill that could be worth having....

(2) Latin gives one an iron-like grasp of grammar. It's a lasting framework that can be applied to many other languages. The system might not be identical but you can see how things work VERY quickly.  Saves a lot of time, particularly if you're going on to learn half a dozen or more languages.

(3) There is a danger. Learning a dead language often gives you an appetite for more dead languages. On my own, I managed to learn a bit of Koine (New Testament Greek) and some Anglo Saxon. I got some exposure to Old and Medieval French in University. No, I never made a dime from it - but it has given me more pleasure than other studies that did make me money. Some things I studied for money - others for pleasure. I was 40-odd, and it was my money, so.... Also, I was never an English teacher, but I'd not have much confidence in one who didn't know at least something of those now-dead languages and how they influenced the one he/she teaches today. I was fortunate to have  some English teachers who DID know Latin, Greek, Anglo-Saxon and other components of English. Their knowledge showed and was of benefit (at least I thought) to students.

(4) Not everyone should have to take dead languages. Not everyone should have to take algebra either - though I'll admit it has useful applications that dead languages don't. But they need to be there for people who want - or think they need - to study them. Not everyone is cut out for a career in IT.

(5) Most (not all) European languages are of Indo-European origin. It's very interesting, if you have a few words of Sanskrit, to see how the different branches of the Indo-European tree gave rise to the languages spoken today. And right, you likely won't make any money from it, but it can be a very pleasurable and truly mind-expanding experience.

I like dead languages; I like living ones too. I even like computer languages - they have vocabulary and syntax as well. I like Ruby, Python, JavaScript, C and its variants. All good. Hey, maybe I should try some DEAD programming languages! Algol, APL, GW-BASIC maybe? Well, "De gustibus non est disputandum," as the Latin saying goes. No accounting for tastes. It was a thought....

I have nothing against dead languages. I have a problem with a college - not even a university - that charges $60,000 a year in tuition - not including fees or room & board and offers so many programs that are a waste of money and time. Study all the languages you want. Dead ones. Live ones. I really don't care. The college is hurting for money and they wonder why.....because they have soooooooo many programs that are useless in the grand scheme of life for 99% of the population. They do not offer business degrees, IT degrees, healthcare degrees, nothing useful really. It's all liberal arts most of which are obscure. This is a legacy college. Kids go there because their parents or grandparents went there. The vast majority of them are white rich kids. Most of them don't know what it's really like in the real world. Studying a language that died 2000 years ago is the least of their problems based on the drugs, alcohol, and rapes happening on and off campus.

[Johann]

"I have nothing against dead languages." - ss20ts.

Really? OK if you say so. You DID say to get rid of them four times and were quite emphatic.

"They do have lovely programs. But what is a 22 year old going to do with a degree in ... English? Used to be able to land a journalism career.....well we know how print media is doing." - ss20ts

My younger son's nephew (by marriage) is a fairly recent English grad - and yes, he was 22 when he graduated, IIRC. He works in journalism - print media. He started working at this during summers, before graduation with an Honours English degree. Ever since, he's been doing fine full-time, thank you very much. He just got back from India - they had the Catholic wedding here and the Sikh wedding there. In his journalism work, he's also learned to be a fine photographer - and has carved himself out an excellent business with that skill. He's got a very versatile skillset. And intelligence. He'll do fine. Adaptation to non-print, as and when necessary, will hold no terrors for him.

My elder son (50) has taught high school (computer and tech subjects) for around 20 years. He also went back to college at night a few years ago to earn a second credential - in creative writing. He has a fine sideline - freelance writing on the internet - and he's good enough and reputable enough to earn real dough - steadily, with no detriment to his teaching job - which he truly loves. (He has tech skills like crazy!) I can see him enjoying an active, remunerative retirement from teaching in the next decade, thanks in good part to his English-related abilities, all in non-print media.

Incidentally, my son didn't begin his teaching career till he was nearly 30. He graduated from a college program in Media Writing at 21 or so and used his communication skills in a University radio station for some years, acquiring broadcast & tech. skills and finishing as Program Director. Pay at that level was pretty good, too, for those times. After a few years as Program Director, "the coolest job in the world" as he put it, he "got the call" and went to Teachers' College. Good writer, good program director, good teacher. It all started with that first college writing program. His high school guidance counselor advised against it - "son, you'll never get a job." Well, he damn well did, as we have seen. So much for guidance counsellors.

There is still a lot of hope for English grads. Skills, ability, ambition and imagination - not optional. I think that's the rule in IT too. And many other fields. The real problems, as you mentioned, are the staggering cost of education and the crushing burden of student debt. My sons didn't have that. I don't think either son had student debt exceeding $500. I was even luckier. I went back to school in my 40s, working full time, school at night. I retired at 50 and kept going to night school until 62. Come to think of it, in the early years, all three of us were in college (different schools) around the same time. I paid as I went - no student debt at all. Much harder to do that today...

[Merlin]

I have nothing against dead languages. I have a problem with a college - not even a university - that charges $60,000 a year in tuition - not including fees or room & board and offers so many programs that are a waste of money and time. Study all the languages you want. Dead ones. Live ones. I really don't care. The college is hurting for money and they wonder why.....because they have soooooooo many programs that are useless in the grand scheme of life for 99% of the population. They do not offer business degrees, IT degrees, healthcare degrees, nothing useful really. It's all liberal arts most of which are obscure.

I think this is interesting since this actually mirrors the ideological split between regional accreditation and national accreditation. Or, at least it was when the schism first appeared back in the late 1970's to early 1980's.

While it is different now, as I understand it, the national accreditation system was started by schools that broke away from the regional system because they didn't want to be bound by strictly academic-focused regional accreditation regulations. The fundamental difference in ideology was that those schools thought that colleges should be career-oriented and that "trade schools" should follow different standards than the more traditional liberal arts and sciences colleges because they focused more on applied skills-based education rather than pure academics. Once they earned DETC approval, a lot of trade schools flocked to (and new schools formed under) the NA umbrella due to the relaxed admissions requirements and were eventually joined by other non-academically focused schools like religious organizations and correspondence schools.

Of course, that also opened the door to for-profit schools and predatory educational organizations (which is why everyone knows who the University of Phoenix is now) and all sorts of other baggage along the way. Now we have schools that use national accreditation as a stepping stone to reach regional accreditation and are really no different than a lot of other RA schools, so the differences aren't as explicit anymore.

Personally, I see both sides. I think that a liberal arts education exposes students to new ideas and ideologies and helps them to improve their critical thinking skills. At the same time, I think that kids should come out of college with skills that help them to become fiscally productive in the economy in some way. So maybe we need colleges to be more of a blend of the two approaches?

For adult learners coming back to school to complete a degree or earn a second one, the rules should be different and definitely more skills-focused. While I think that having a strong working knowledge of things like algebra and basic statistics and such is useful, it should depend on the degree or skills associated with the degree. Likewise with sciences... forcing a science and lab on people who don't ever plan to work in the sciences serves more to frustrate adult learners and keeps them from returning to college.

[monchevy]

I think the biggest problem with getting rid of those degree requirements is that American students often graduate HS with minimal skills in the general education requirements area. Algebra is actually useful to daily life and many people use it without realizing it. But the way it's taught in school is awful.

European schools do not have the general education requirements. But, in many countries, an American doesn't even technically count as being eligible for university even if they graduated from an American high school. That's how poor the education system is. The whole thing needs an overhaul, not just the university system.

But the general ed requirements are all things you already just passed in high school. Right now, the first year of college is essentially Grade 12 all over again. Which is extremely profitable, but if the student passed those subjects already, that should be enough. If they didn't pass, they should still be in high school until they do. And for some of us, we passed it decades ago, have never used it, and are at the point in our career where we don't need to go back to the drawing board and relearn stuff we already passed and will never use... just to have a piece of paper that supposedly means we're not complete dingbats. 

I don't have a degree in my 50s, yet I am shut out of jobs I'm qualified for through decades of DOING them, because I don't have that piece of paper. If I did, I would have earned it in 1985. How relevant would a lot of it be today anyway? But still, they'd rather see that, or a degree that's not even in my field, than prioritize the fact that I've been doing the job successfully for decades. I'm so sick of fighting that battle.

The reason European schools don't have those gen ed requirements in university is because of precisely what I'm saying... they were already taken and passed in high school, or the student wouldn't be in university. Which is why, for example, in the UK, a full bachelor's degree is only three years. They don't waste an entire year reinventing the wheel... they just start where you left off instead of making you repeat it. And if our university system wasn't based entirely on MAKING MONEY, we could do the same thing.