Heaven forbid they just lower tuition.

[davewill]

Special Report: Tuition spikes send higher education enrollment tumbling
As price rises, students drop by 1.2 million, sparking run of mergers

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_c...t_tumbling

Sound to me like online education will only become more crucial.

[cookderosa]

Special Report: Tuition spikes send higher education enrollment tumbling
As price rises, students drop by 1.2 million, sparking run of mergers

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_c...t_tumbling

Sound to me like online education will only become more crucial.

If you've ever heard people talk about "adopters" of a trend or something like technology - or if you've seen the chart, it's like a bell curve.
Anyway, people in my children's age range are innovators and early adopters of tech products - no question. In fact, my 22 year old -to the best of my knowledge- never once took a pen or pencil to a college class. All tech, all the time. But us middle aged folks, we are late majority / laggers simply because computers became integrated into our lives during our lives - we weren't born into it. So, my analysis is this- when you see adults here and on other DL sites, and WE are using technology, it's time for the colleges to wake up to the fact that tech won't be LESS important in the future, so 1.2 fewer people are enrolled than in 2011 (according to your link) why?

Well.... yes, probably price, but not only price. STEM trumps liberal arts all day long. We all know that. Employment numbers demonstrate that. Who is hanging onto the idea of traditionally earned liberal arts education? Old people. People in my age range and my parent's age range could graduate with any degree and go to work- now, employers want skills <gasp> and the young people figured this out. Still a lot of parents (my age group) pushing their teens into liberal arts education / any degree, because they have the same mentality I had - but the problem is that the world has changed and we (late majority/ laggers) have taken a while to figure it out.

Colleges will eventually figure it out...even though it takes losing 1.2 million in enrollment to send the message.

Degrees should be cheap, fast, attainable, portable, and result in some type of career advancement or placement. In addition, you should be able to access information digitally becasuse....duh....everything can be done digitally - videos of lectures, textbooks, email to peers/instructors, submitting papers for grading, reviewing papers for plagiarism. So, the point of sitting in a lecture hall is what? The point of paying $1400 per credit is what? Colleges will have to morph.

[SolarKat]

Reminded me of this:  http://www.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/216...-arts.aspx

Colleges are rebranding the 'liberal arts' degree, because no one wants to buy that anymore.

[sanantone]

Liberal arts and STEM aren't mutually exclusive.  The liberal arts include mathematics and the natural sciences. Ironically, the social sciences are relatively new, so the classical liberal arts are the humanities, mathematics, and science. Also, STEM includes psychology.

We must be careful when we make blanket statements about STEM. For example, someone with a bachelor's degree in economics, which is a social science, has much higher earning potential than someone with a bachelor's degree in biology.

On an interesting note, I just saw an article on how history is becoming increasingly popular at Yale.

I actually have a different theory on what's happening. When we had the Great Recession, a lot of people rushed to college to, and majors like accounting and nursing became increasingly popular. The rush toward nursing was a disaster, but I won't get into that. Now that the economy is better, there are probably more people choosing to study what they love, such as history. And, the types of people who see universities as trade schools, which they have never been designed to be, are electing not to go to college since they are having an easier time finding employment. If you want vocational training, community colleges are still cheap.

I've found that parents are absolutely terrible at giving college advice, but not because they tell their kids to study what they love. They often have no idea of what is actually in demand. Many times, I've heard older adults suggest criminal justice as the applied and more marketable alternative to studying psychology and sociology. That advice is completely wrong for so many reasons, but I also won't get into that because it'll raise my blood pressure.

Historically, college was mostly only available to the wealthy, and there was little class mobility. Financial aid actually made it possible for poorer people to go to college. With increasing tuition rates, it's going to once again make it difficult for poorer people to go to college. An under-educated working class is easier to control. We're already seeing signs of under-educated people being easily manipulated by millionaires and billionaires making empty promises and decisions that ultimately make wealthy people wealthier.

[cardiacclep]

Special Report: Tuition spikes send higher education enrollment tumbling
As price rises, students drop by 1.2 million, sparking run of mergers

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_c...t_tumbling

Sound to me like online education will only become more crucial.

If you've ever heard people talk about "adopters" of a trend or something like technology - or if you've seen the chart, it's like a bell curve.  
Anyway, people in my children's age range are innovators and early adopters of tech products - no question.  In fact, my 22 year old -to the best of my knowledge- never once took a pen or pencil to a college class.  All tech, all the time.  But us middle aged folks, we are late majority / laggers simply because computers became integrated into our lives during our lives - we weren't born into it.  So, my analysis is this- when you see adults here and on other DL sites, and WE are using technology, it's time for the colleges to wake up to the fact that tech won't be LESS important in the future, so 1.2 fewer people are enrolled than in 2011 (according to your link) why?  

Well.... yes, probably price, but not only price.  STEM trumps liberal arts all day long.  We all know that.  Employment numbers demonstrate that.  Who is hanging onto the idea of traditionally earned liberal arts education?  Old people.  People in my age range and my parent's age range could graduate with any degree and go to work- now, employers want skills <gasp> and the young people figured this out.  Still a lot of parents (my age group) pushing their teens into liberal arts education / any degree, because they have the same mentality I had - but the problem is that the world has changed and we (late majority/ laggers) have taken a while to figure it out.  

Colleges will eventually figure it out...even though it takes losing 1.2 million in enrollment to send the message.  

Degrees should be cheap, fast, attainable, portable, and result in some type of career advancement or placement.  In addition, you should be able to access information digitally becasuse....duh....everything can be done digitally - videos of lectures, textbooks, email to peers/instructors, submitting papers for grading, reviewing papers for plagiarism.  So, the point of sitting in a lecture hall is what?  The point of paying $1400 per credit is what?  Colleges will have to morph.

Very true on all points. Skills pay the bills. However, I am bit concerned liberal arts are getting a bad rap. Liberal arts were created as a systematic way to educate citizens so they could have a better grasp on maintaining their freedom (liberation) by being well versed on a variety of topics deemed worthy of a free person such as law, math, political science and public speaking skills. Sure a history major doesn't have real tangibles skills, BUT they (hopefully) know that history can repeat its self and know that atrocities that we think were a long time ago are really not so far away and easy to repeat if their magnitude is not appreciated. How to balance this conundrum is beyond my pay grade. One option is to make this all affordable as maybe one can get an interesting liberal arts degree and then actually have money to pursue a job specific skill since they will be without crushing student debt. I really hope in the future colleges see this and create cheap almost free on demand curriculum to where this is an (degree) option. Seems now the only choice is to pick one degree and pray you made the right the decision as your economic reality after said choice puts you on a set of tracks that do not have many exit points.

[Thorne]

Very true on all points. Skills pay the bills. However, I am bit concerned liberal arts are getting a bad rap. Liberal arts were created as a systematic way to educate citizens so they could have a better grasp on maintaining their freedom (liberation) by being well versed on a variety of topics deemed worthy of a free person such as law, math, political science and public speaking skills. Sure a history major doesn't have real tangibles skills, BUT they (hopefully) know that history can repeat its self and know that atrocities that we think were a long time ago are really not so far away and easy to repeat if their magnitude is not appreciated. How to balance this conundrum is beyond my pay grade. One option is to make this all affordable as maybe one can get an interesting liberal arts degree and then actually have money to pursue a job specific skill since they will be without crushing student debt. I really hope in the future colleges see this and create cheap almost free on demand curriculum to where this is an (degree) option. Seems now the only choice is to pick one degree and pray you made the right the decision as your economic reality after said choice puts you on a set of tracks that do not have many exit points.

Frankly put, the artes liberales should be the core of the education of every living person. Liberal arts degrees? These are not the artes liberales anymore.

"Liberal arts" or "liberal studies" degrees (the broad LS/LA degrees, not the specific arts studies) are often a keyword for, "I couldn't pick a major, so I took a bunch of classes in everything!"

The liberal arts themselves could be fit into a much more practical degree plan by removing most of the electives. No Gen Ed electives and certainly no free electives. Keep the general education studies, then require students to study the artes liberales that surpass general education requirements, then the studium utilis (useful studies -- the AOS). If there are any credit slots left after a student has attained these three, then offer electives.

This would ensure that a serious student would absolutely attain merito or ἀρετή in both a practical field and in the arts of freedom. The not-so-serious students? Well, they're not going to get anywhere with or without a degree.

Disclaimers:
When referring to the BALS, I only mean from B&M schools where it takes 3-4 years to obtain a degree that doesn't offer any tangible value.
I don't dislike people who currently have a BALS or other such degree earned in a nontraditional fashion. The current system does not offer reasonable pathways to obtain an inexpensive, practical degree. I do believe that the system should be overhauled so that degrees are inexpensive and can be attained as quickly as someone can learn the material whilst offering a quality education. If such an overhaul is ever instituted, every other degree plan, which would offer a practical component as well as an academic and civic component, would be far better than a BALS could possibly be. Thus, those who would pursue a BALS - despite the other options being just as attainable and affordable - would be lazy fools.

I don't mean to sound overly posh or pedantic by stuffing Latin into an English post. I'm just now beginning to study Latin in my spare time, so I'm interjecting the words where it makes some semblance of sense in the conversation to aid in the learning process.

[dfrecore]

Frankly put, the artes liberales should be the core of the education of every living person. Liberal arts degrees? These are not the artes liberales anymore. 

The liberal arts themselves could be fit into a much more practical degree plan by removing most of the electives. No Gen Ed electives and certainly no free electives. Keep the general education studies, then require students to study the artes liberales that surpass general education requirements, then the studium utilis (useful studies -- the AOS). If there are any credit slots left after a student has attained these three, then offer electives.

This would ensure that a serious student would absolutely attain merito or ἀρετή in both a practical field and in the arts of freedom. The not-so-serious students? Well, they're not going to get anywhere with or without a degree.

I think that the degrees could be streamlined.  If colleges feel that students need to take SOME liberal arts courses because they need them to be well-rounded people - well, I agree to an extent, and I also think that every college student should take SOME liberal arts courses - but maybe not 60cr.  2 semesters of English Comp, American Government, Public Speaking, math, science, history - seems like enough to me.

After that, necessary skills in the major.

And then - that's it.  No fluff.  Degrees could be a lot closer to 3 years max, and even 2 years, if you got rid of the fluff.  I certainly don't need an Info Lit course, or a Diversity course, or any number of GE Electives - to know what's going on in the world.  I'm either paying attention, or I'm not, and forcing me to take 60cr of Gen Ed doesn't force me to be a good citizen (and I've seen enough of Watters World or Jay Leno's Streetwalking thing to know that most people, including most college students, are totally clueless).

I know a college degree may be important - but the 4-year part is definitely outdated.

[cardiacclep]

Very true on all points. Skills pay the bills. However, I am bit concerned liberal arts are getting a bad rap. Liberal arts were created as a systematic way to educate citizens so they could have a better grasp on maintaining their freedom (liberation) by being well versed on a variety of topics deemed worthy of a free person such as law, math, political science and public speaking skills. Sure a history major doesn't have real tangibles skills, BUT they (hopefully) know that history can repeat its self and know that atrocities that we think were a long time ago are really not so far away and easy to repeat if their magnitude is not appreciated. How to balance this conundrum is beyond my pay grade. One option is to make this all affordable as maybe one can get an interesting liberal arts degree and then actually have money to pursue a job specific skill since they will be without crushing student debt. I really hope in the future colleges see this and create cheap almost free on demand curriculum to where this is an (degree) option. Seems now the only choice is to pick one degree and pray you made the right the decision as your economic reality after said choice puts you on a set of tracks that do not have many exit points.

Frankly put, the artes liberales should be the core of the education of every living person. Liberal arts degrees? These are not the artes liberales anymore.

"Liberal arts" or "liberal studies" degrees (the broad LS/LA degrees, not the specific arts studies) are often a keyword for, "I couldn't pick a major, so I took a bunch of classes in everything!"

The liberal arts themselves could be fit into a much more practical degree plan by removing most of the electives. No Gen Ed electives and certainly no free electives. Keep the general education studies, then require students to study the artes liberales that surpass general education requirements, then the studium utilis (useful studies -- the AOS). If there are any credit slots left after a student has attained these three, then offer electives.

This would ensure that a serious student would absolutely attain merito or ἀρετή in both a practical field and in the arts of freedom. The not-so-serious students? Well, they're not going to get anywhere with or without a degree.

Disclaimers:
When referring to the BALS, I only mean from B&M schools where it takes 3-4 years to obtain a degree that doesn't offer any tangible value.
I don't dislike people who currently have a BALS or other such degree earned in a nontraditional fashion. The current system does not offer reasonable pathways to obtain an inexpensive, practical degree. I do believe that the system should be overhauled so that degrees are inexpensive and can be attained as quickly as someone can learn the material whilst offering a quality education. If such an overhaul is ever instituted, every other degree plan, which would offer a practical component as well as an academic and civic component, would be far better than a BALS could possibly be. Thus, those who would pursue a BALS - despite the other options being just as attainable and affordable - would be lazy fools.

I don't mean to sound overly posh or pedantic by stuffing Latin into an English post. I'm just now beginning to study Latin in my spare time, so I'm interjecting the words where it makes some semblance of sense in the conversation to aid in the learning process.

The key is affordable and attainable as you stated. This current format is failing at teaching true liberal arts as evident by our current political and economic climates where the masses are not prepared to make appropriate decisions. Granted, this feat is becoming more difficult and convoluted as there is much paralysis by analysis and untrustworthy sources of information. In reality, if you want to learn and elevate yourself one will find a way as you did with learning Latin. Perhaps we should not look to higher ed anymore for that as we can get all that are finger tips and probably more effective online. Maybe look to degrees for career advancement and create a choose your own adventure in cultural studies might be the most realistic way to achieve a well rounded worldly perspective.......whatever that means in 2017.

---

Liberal arts and STEM aren't mutually exclusive.  The liberal arts include mathematics and the natural sciences. Ironically, the social sciences are relatively new, so the classical liberal arts are the humanities, mathematics, and science. Also, STEM includes psychology.

We must be careful when we make blanket statements about STEM. For example, someone with a bachelor's degree in economics, which is a social science, has much higher earning potential than someone with a bachelor's degree in biology.

On an interesting note, I just saw an article on how history is becoming increasingly popular at Yale.

I actually have a different theory on what's happening. When we had the Great Recession, a lot of people rushed to college to, and majors like accounting and nursing became increasingly popular. The rush toward nursing was a disaster, but I won't get into that. Now that the economy is better, there are probably more people choosing to study what they love, such as history. And, the types of people who see universities as trade schools, which they have never been designed to be, are electing not to go to college since they are having an easier time finding employment. If you want vocational training, community colleges are still cheap.

I've found that parents are absolutely terrible at giving college advice, but not because they tell their kids to study what they love. They often have no idea of what is actually in demand. Many times, I've heard older adults suggest criminal justice as the applied and more marketable alternative to studying psychology and sociology. That advice is completely wrong for so many reasons, but I also won't get into that because it'll raise my blood pressure.

Historically, college was mostly only available to the wealthy, and there was little class mobility. Financial aid actually made it possible for poorer people to go to college. With increasing tuition rates, it's going to once again make it difficult for poorer people to go to college. An under-educated working class is easier to control. We're already seeing signs of under-educated people being easily manipulated by millionaires and billionaires making empty promises and decisions that ultimately make wealthy people wealthier.

You absolutely correct on all points. We are at this weird point in time where the future and past are tugging on the roots of higher ed academic with that comes excitement and apprehension. Working in healthcare I understand your comment on nursing. Getting into an industry, particularity healthcare, strictly because of job prospects is fraught with many perils. The dichotomy is that people must choose a career and educational path and not all passions (art history) can put food on the table. The economic realities of modern day are propelling the educational crisis into uncharted waters. I really do not know if I can give credible advice to younger people at this point.

[videogamesrock]

I believe we are on the verge of the student loan and tuition bubble bursting. The next financial crisis.

[cardiacclep]

I believe we are on the verge of the student loan and tuition bubble bursting. The next financial crisis.

There is a lot of money tied up in student loans that cannot be defaulted on. Feels like the bubble should have happened by now but maybe it might be like a slow bleed type of economic impact because of minimum payments and probably less drastic as home evictions seen in 2008.  I am enjoying seeing unethical schools like Everest and U of P getting destroyed finally. The market might be finally self correcting but it is hard to turn around this ship. I wish reputable state schools would accept or create their own Straighterline type of courses. Individual courses have little ROI compared to cost.....we pay for the aggregate (the degree). People taking an online psychology 101 know there is no need to be paying more than Straigterline prices as this point. Will market pressures actually make colleges adapt is the big question.