Walmart to Help Associates Get College Degrees

[sanantone]

Walmart appears to be offering degree programs that can benefit them. This benefits employees who plan to stay. Their target audience is definitely not people looking to take on a temporary job just to get a free degree, obviously. You can use them that way, but this is not a good option for most people.

[dfrecore]

Walmart appears to be offering degree programs that can benefit them. This benefits employees who plan to stay. Their target audience is definitely not people looking to take on a temporary job just to get a free degree, obviously. You can use them that way, but this is not a good option for most people.

MOST companies that offer tuition reimbursement do it to benefit themselves - which is why so many require that you stay for a certain amount of time - they want the benefit of what they paid for!  But, it's not just them that benefits - it's a win-win for the employer and employee.

Most of the companies I've worked for have had a limit on what kind of degree they would pay for.  None said "sky's the limit, got get a degree in underwater basket weaving and it's on us!"  Some have said you could only get one in your current field - so if you were an accounting assistant, you could get an accounting or business degree, if you worked in shipping you could get a business or supply chain degree, if you worked in IT you could get an IT degree, or maybe business with an IT portion.  And some companies have said you could get X, Y, or Z degrees.  You had to pitch it to your boss, who had to sign off on it, and then send the plan to the HR department for them to ok it as well.

[MNomadic]

Walmart appears to be offering degree programs that can benefit them. This benefits employees who plan to stay. Their target audience is definitely not people looking to take on a temporary job just to get a free degree, obviously. You can use them that way, but this is not a good option for most people.

I think it benefits more than just employees who want to stay. It benefits anyone who doesn't have a degree and doesn't have many other options for a degree or many other job opportunities. True, no potential employer is having wet dreams over the next candidate with a Walmart sponsored BSBA but that degree is one of the most widely applicable. Most businesses need someone with business knowledge I think.

I think they would greatly benefit from people that just want a cheap degree from them. I'm not going to generalize EVERY Walmart employee, but a lot of people who work at Walmart may not have many life aspirations or motivation to try hard. After all, worst case scenario from being fired from walmart: getting a different low paying retail job with lowish standards. But if someone wants to work at Walmart for the purpose of college benefits, they can plan long term(a year or more anyway) and presumably would take a certain level of care with their job performance. If they screw around and show up drunk or high, they lose out on significantly more than just $11/hour wages. That also gives Walmart a certain amount of implied leverage on the employees. I also think that(theoretically) someone with college aspirations applying to Walmart probably has a little bit better character and work ethics than some of the applicants they get.

Probably not a good option for most people. There are many different ways to get into a well paying career. Some involve college and some don't. But Walmart is stepping up it's pay and benefits a little which is good.

Lots of employers offer college benefits, but very few with such low qualifications and very low expectations to pay for a degree for a part time employees.

[cookderosa]

Walmart appears to be offering degree programs that can benefit them. This benefits employees who plan to stay. Their target audience is definitely not people looking to take on a temporary job just to get a free degree, obviously. You can use them that way, but this is not a good option for most people.

Sure, but it's mutually beneficial for those who follow through. By working while you complete the degree, you've racked up a nice employment history (3+ years) that probably included a promotion (potential employers LOVE that), and work experience as a manager (!). By the time you leave Walmart, if you're smart, you've got solid work history with a promotion and 1+ year management experience. Not only are you a solid job candidate, but you're a desirable one. That's markedly different from the meandering path many people take- which is to work retail while in school and then upon graduation expect a management position with a different company at a higher rate of pay/responsibility despite having no experience. Companies promote from within -that's a fact, and hiring random managers with no management experience? Unlikely.

Also, and this isn't specific to Sananton'es comments, but I LOVE these kinds of "off the beaten path secrete passageways." The less likely that they appeal to "most people" the more likely they are to appeal to me. It's within these little narrow opportunities that you can really find something great. Why? Because things that appeal or work for "most people" have crappy ROI...they're tired and worn. Companies know that "most people" don't go to college. Of those who do, most won't finish in 6 years. Most people will borrow to attend college, and most will have a student loan payment for years. I know most people find safety in numbers, but we've always looked for unexpected opportunities as a family, and its served us very well. There are about a zillion famous quotes that suggest taking the road less traveled or seeing what the masses are doing and then do the opposite. Those are my people.

[Life Long Learning]

Also, and this isn't specific to Sananton'es comments, but I LOVE these kinds of "off the beaten path secrete passageways."  The less likely that they appeal to "most people" the more likely they are to appeal to me.  It's within these little narrow opportunities that you can really find something great.  Why?  Because things that appeal or work for "most people" have crappy ROI...they're tired and worn.  

I agree!  I would 100% respect a Walmart employee getting a degree thru Walmart.  It shows ambition, focus, tenacity, work ethic, and wanting to better themselves.    The reason I like the CCAF AAS degrees is that us masses (like me) can't get them.   How cool would a Home Depot AAS in Home Improvement be?

[sanantone]

You all totally misunderstood the point of my comments. My comments are made in the context of this thread. A few of you have touted this as a way for your average high school graduate to get a degree for free, but this really isn't an appealing option for your average high school graduate. This is an option for people who would have ended up at Walmart regardless of the education benefit, and most of them will likely be non-traditional college students.

I know how tuition reimbursement works at most companies, so I didn't need that explained. Similar to Walmart, most companies' education benefits are not ideal for your average kid coming out of high school.

But, you have all unintentionally made an argument that goes against your typical views. There has yet to be a private sector solution for the widespread issue of high tuition and growing student loan debt, and we'll likely never see one. There is no incentive for the private sector to help solve this issue in any meaningful way.

I don't really get the whole "Walmart degree" thing. If you earn a BSBA from UF, then you have a BSBA from UF. But, just because every business has business needs (that's kind of a given) it doesn't mean that the market needs a half a million new BSBAs every year. There is evidence that it doesn't.

[dfrecore]

But, you have all unintentionally made an argument that goes against your typical views. There has yet to be a private sector solution for the widespread issue of high tuition and growing student loan debt, and we'll likely never see one. There is no incentive for the private sector to help solve this issue in any meaningful way.

I guess I'm not understanding where it's up to the private sector to fix this problem.  This is a problem that cannot be fixed by anyone other than the government getting out of the student loan business, and then schools having to make tuition reasonably priced.  And, students (and their parents) refusing to participate in the madness, by choosing schools they can afford, including CC if they need to.  If every student said "I refuse to take out a loan," colleges would be hurting VERY badly for students, and would HAVE to do something to entice them in - which could ONLY be lower costs.

But with government (and taxpayers) underwriting degrees for people who choose "the college experience" and schools spending ridiculous amounts of money on things nobody needs, there is no way for the private sector to combat the problem.  They just can't.  The more money that is thrown at this problem, the more colleges spend!!

[cookderosa]

You all totally misunderstood the point of my comments. My comments are made in the context of this thread. A few of you have touted this as a way for your average high school graduate to get a degree for free, but this really isn't an appealing option for your average high school graduate. This is an option for people who would have ended up at Walmart regardless of the education benefit, and most of them will likely be non-traditional college students...

But, you have all unintentionally made an argument that goes against your typical views. There has yet to be a private sector solution for the widespread issue of high tuition and growing student loan debt, and we'll likely never see one. There is no incentive for the private sector to help solve this issue in any meaningful way.

I understand what you're saying, but I guess I place the responsibility on the consumer to solve this problem for himself. I'm just a crazy conservative republican like that. I know that when I advise my own kids, or when my husband and I consider education for ourselves, programs like this would speak to us. In 2012 we sold our house and moved our family halfway across the country so he could take a job that gave our entire family free tuition. Through that program he just earned an MBA. My oldest son is working for a company that pays his tuition, my second son used SL and will work and pay cash for the rest. My third and fourth sons are maxing out dual enrollment $$$ and I could go on. I realize that my kids aren't representative of what "most" would do, or that "most" might not be willing to relocate to pursue an education for zero tuition, but maybe that's the problem. It's too easy to just borrow instead of being resourceful. I do believe that an average student 100% for sure could graduate high school and grab a job at Walmart to earn their degree in business (and from UF no less!?!?)

[alexf.1990]

I understand what you're saying, but I guess I place the responsibility on the consumer to solve this problem for himself.  I'm just a crazy conservative republican like that.  I know that when I advise my own kids, or when my husband and I consider education for ourselves, programs like this would speak to us.  In 2012  we sold our house and moved our family halfway across the country so he could take a job that gave our entire family free tuition.  Through that program he just earned an MBA.  My oldest son is working for a company that pays his tuition, my second son used SL and will work and pay cash for the rest.  My third and fourth sons are maxing out dual enrollment $$$ and I could go on.  I realize that my kids aren't representative of what "most" would do, or that "most" might not be willing to relocate to pursue an education for zero tuition, but maybe that's the problem. It's too easy to just borrow instead of being resourceful.  I do believe that an average student 100% for sure could graduate high school and grab a job at Walmart to earn their degree in business (and from UF no less!?!?)

The consumer is certainly partly to blame. People should certainly do their research when it comes to such a large purchase. On the other hand, our entire high school system is designed to push students into colleges, and our government readily underwrites loans at rates well below the market rate. I'd have alot less sympathy for college students if the market weren't corrupted by government subsidies and there wasn't immense social pressure to attend colleges.

[sanantone]

But, you have all unintentionally made an argument that goes against your typical views. There has yet to be a private sector solution for the widespread issue of high tuition and growing student loan debt, and we'll likely never see one. There is no incentive for the private sector to help solve this issue in any meaningful way.

I guess I'm not understanding where it's up to the private sector to fix this problem.  This is a problem that cannot be fixed by anyone other than the government getting out of the student loan business, and then schools having to make tuition reasonably priced.  And, students (and their parents) refusing to participate in the madness, by choosing schools they can afford, including CC if they need to.  If every student said "I refuse to take out a loan," colleges would be hurting VERY badly for students, and would HAVE to do something to entice them in - which could ONLY be lower costs.

But with government (and taxpayers) underwriting degrees for people who choose "the college experience" and schools spending ridiculous amounts of money on things nobody needs, there is no way for the private sector to combat the problem.  They just can't.  The more money that is thrown at this problem, the more colleges spend!!

I never said that it was the responsibility of the private sector. I simply said that the private sector is not going to come up with a solution. 

The dramatic rise in tuition is actually correlated with reduced state funding during the recessions. It's not correlated with the availability of federal student loans. There was also correlation with the rising popularity of for-profit colleges and the increase in student loan defaults. If all the for-profit colleges went out of business, that would take care of a large portion of defaults. Community colleges are also responsible for a disproportionate share of defaults even though they're the cheapest schools around. 

On average, for-profit colleges are cheaper than private, nonprofit colleges. CCs are relatively dirt cheap. Now, why would these two types of colleges have the highest student loan default rates. What do they have in common? Well, I can tell you what they have in common. 

They serve many students who are not academically prepared for college. They have high dropout rates, so students don't have degrees to get a job that can cover student loan payments. Their students are more likely to rely on financial aid, not only for tuition and fees, but for living expenses. Their students also tend to have more personal and family issues due the fact that many are minorities and others who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. 

I showed you data before to back up all these points, but it's more politically advantageous to blame the government for everything. The only thing I blame the government for is giving billions of dollars to shady, for-profit colleges that take advantage of the poor, first generation college students, minorities, and disabled veterans. Most of these for-profit colleges wouldn't survive without government money because their students can't afford to pay anything. Unless a for-profit company is a government contractor, then it shouldn't be getting 90% of its revenue from the government.

While I think it's stupid to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the college experience, the bulk of student loan defaults are NOT coming from traditional college students. They are coming from people who commute to CCs and who take night and/or online classes at for-profit colleges.

Of course, there are several countries that are able to provide free or low-cost post-secondary education to their citizens without this financial aid mess. They've made college more affordable with more government involvement. Sometimes, it's cheaper to cut out the middleman. The problem isn't government; the problem is the U.S. government. In its quest not to have "socialism," which is something we already have, it spends more money with worse outcomes. Look at healthcare. Even before Obamacare, the U.S. spent more money on healthcare while simultaneously having a lower percentage of people covered.