As I have written about whether or not the price of college is worth the reward, I have learned a lot. I have discovered that college is definitely not for everyone. For many people, the price of college is not worth the reward. While this did not surprise me, some of the reasons for this did surprise me. One of the reasons that surprised me was that only 29 percent of four year college graduates read at an advanced level. In writing this blog, I have learned not only what I hoped to learn, but more also.
Focusing on my topic in phases had some benefits and some drawbacks. One of the benefits was that I learned how to write a good summary and a good response before putting them together. By the time I needed to write a post including both of them, I had received input on how to improve my summaries and responses, and was able to apply this information. Another way that working through this topic in phases helped was that I was able to learn how to find better sources as I moved forward. If I had written this all at one time, my sources would probably have been pretty weak. One drawback was that I felt that some posts were incomplete. In the summary post for example, I would have loved to address some of what the author said in his article, but I was not able to. As a whole though, addressing the topic in phases did help me.
After this blog, I will change the way I learn about topics a little bit. While I probably will not approach them all in phases, I will apply some of what I learned by approaching this topic in phases. I will try to approach my topics in bite sized chunks, rather than trying to learn everything at once.
While this topic has made me more confident about my ability to discuss this topic with others, it has not changed my confidence level when it comes to discussing other topics. The main reason for this is that I already was fairly comfortable discussing topics with others. I enjoy hearing the other side of an argument and trying to respond to it.
The most valuable thing that I have learned about research while writing this blog is how to assess a sources credibility. Because of what I have learned about assessing a source's credibility, the papers I write moving forward will be meaningful. My papers will be able to use credible arguments and counter arguments, giving them weight. Not only have I gained knowledge about my topic writing this blog, I have gained knowledge regarding how to approach writing any topic.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Summary and Response 2
In this post I will once again be summarizing and responding to an article. The article that I will be using is, The Value of A Degree, written by Jenna Ashley Robinson. The article can be found on the pope center's website, the specific URL being http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2517. There are several reasons that this is a credible source. The first is the website that it appears on. The Pope Center, is, according to its about us page, a nonprofit institute dedicated to improving higher education in North Carolina and the nation. They state that one of their goals is to encourage cost-effective administration and governance. Admittedly, they are talking about themselves so I do need to be careful about believing everything they say. However, there are strong signs of credibility. One is that they are in charge of writing the higher education section for the Carolina Journal. Another sign of credibility associated with the article is that the author embedded several of her sources in the article. While providing the links inside of the article is probably not the best method, at least she does provide them. Some final signs of credibility are associated with the author. One is that if you link to her name, she does provide her email so that you can contact her. Another is that she does have good credentials. She has a masters degree and Ph.D. in political science. While it is not as good as having a degree directly associated with economics, it does qualify her to talk about economic matters. This article is useful to me because it will help me address what a college degree is worth. It will also help me address who a college degree is useful to.
Jenna Robinson starts her article by mentioning the million dollar number. That is, the fact that college graduates make a million dollars more than non college graduates over the course of their career. Unfortunately a study conducted by Mark Schneider, vice president of the American Institutes for Research, offers a rude awakening. Schneider found that once you factor in forgone wages, and the cost of a college education, college is nowhere near being worth the fabled one million dollars. In actuality, college graduates only make 150,000 to 500,000 more than non college graduates over the course of their career. He found that these differences varied depending on the type of college the person graduated from. Those who graduated from the most selective private schools enjoyed an earnings advantage of, on average, 500,000. Those who graduated from a minimally selective private college, on the other hand, only garnered an earnings advantage of 150,000. Naturally, these numbers are hardly consistent. According to the Census Bureau's 2009 Current Population Survey, 20% of those making less than 20,000 a year, hold bachelor's or master's degrees. Also, recent graduates have a jobless rate of almost 10%. Even worse than all this, gains from college are not growing over time. In 1991 young workers with bachelor's degrees earned an average of 1.48 times what high school graduates earned. That number peaked in 2000 at 1.68 times, and by 2009, had fell back to 1.54 times. Over the same period of time, tuition increased 300%. Compounding the problem, students are not learning much in college. The National Assessment of Adult Literacy says that only 29% of four year college graduates read at an advanced level. According to a new book, Academically Adrift, nearly half of university students show no academic advancement by their sophomore year. Another study says that students today only study for 14 hours outside of class, as opposed to 24 hours in 1961. While a bachelors degree is still a good option for many students, future students should consider their options carefully before making their decision.
We used to think that we knew what a college degree was worth. Studies showed people who graduated from college made a million dollars more than those who only graduated from high school, over the course of their career. However, more recent studies have showed that number to be flawed. As Mark Schneider, vice president of the American Institutes for Research, found, once forgone wages and the cost of college is factored in, college graduates only make 150,000 to 500,000 more than high school graduates. Schneider also divided that data up specifically, finding that what kind of school you graduated from also affected how much more you made. The information he found helps support my claim that college is not a wise choice for all people. He found that while those who graduated from a highly selective private college made, on average, 500,000 more than the average high school graduate, those who graduated from a minimally selective private school only made 150,000 more. That number, when considered over the course of an entire career, is relatively small. It is simply not worth it for a future plumber to spend four years in college amassing debt. There is nothing wrong with being a plumber. However, it makes more sense to gain on the job learning and experience, than to run up debt getting an unnecessary degree. While this may seem like common sense, the Census Bureau's 2009 report showed that 20% of individuals making less than $20,000 a year have bachelor's or master's degrees. It can be said, with a high degree of certainty, that those jobs do not require college degrees. Admittedly, many of those individuals are probably not employed in their dream job. However, that does show that they are not getting the job they went to college for. If going to college won't even get you the job you want, why would it make sense to go? Also, the gains that students are reaping from college, are going down. In 1991 college graduates made, on average, 1.48 times what high school graduates did. That number grew until 2000, when it peaked at 1.68 times. It then began to fall. In 2009, in was only 1.54 times. Not only that, over the same period of time, college tuition grew 300%. Students today are paying more, for less. It doesn't even stop there. College students are not learning much either. The National Assessment of Adult Literacy found that only 29% of college graduates read at an advanced level. Other studies have found that students show little to no academic progress by their sophomore year and that they only study outside of class for 14 hours a week. To put that number in context, college students studied outside of class for 24 hours a week in 1961. Like Jenna Robinson, I am unwilling to declare a college degree useless. However, students should carefully consider their options, in light of their career choice, before choosing college. If you are going to pay more, be sure that you are not one of those getting less for it.
Jenna Robinson starts her article by mentioning the million dollar number. That is, the fact that college graduates make a million dollars more than non college graduates over the course of their career. Unfortunately a study conducted by Mark Schneider, vice president of the American Institutes for Research, offers a rude awakening. Schneider found that once you factor in forgone wages, and the cost of a college education, college is nowhere near being worth the fabled one million dollars. In actuality, college graduates only make 150,000 to 500,000 more than non college graduates over the course of their career. He found that these differences varied depending on the type of college the person graduated from. Those who graduated from the most selective private schools enjoyed an earnings advantage of, on average, 500,000. Those who graduated from a minimally selective private college, on the other hand, only garnered an earnings advantage of 150,000. Naturally, these numbers are hardly consistent. According to the Census Bureau's 2009 Current Population Survey, 20% of those making less than 20,000 a year, hold bachelor's or master's degrees. Also, recent graduates have a jobless rate of almost 10%. Even worse than all this, gains from college are not growing over time. In 1991 young workers with bachelor's degrees earned an average of 1.48 times what high school graduates earned. That number peaked in 2000 at 1.68 times, and by 2009, had fell back to 1.54 times. Over the same period of time, tuition increased 300%. Compounding the problem, students are not learning much in college. The National Assessment of Adult Literacy says that only 29% of four year college graduates read at an advanced level. According to a new book, Academically Adrift, nearly half of university students show no academic advancement by their sophomore year. Another study says that students today only study for 14 hours outside of class, as opposed to 24 hours in 1961. While a bachelors degree is still a good option for many students, future students should consider their options carefully before making their decision.
We used to think that we knew what a college degree was worth. Studies showed people who graduated from college made a million dollars more than those who only graduated from high school, over the course of their career. However, more recent studies have showed that number to be flawed. As Mark Schneider, vice president of the American Institutes for Research, found, once forgone wages and the cost of college is factored in, college graduates only make 150,000 to 500,000 more than high school graduates. Schneider also divided that data up specifically, finding that what kind of school you graduated from also affected how much more you made. The information he found helps support my claim that college is not a wise choice for all people. He found that while those who graduated from a highly selective private college made, on average, 500,000 more than the average high school graduate, those who graduated from a minimally selective private school only made 150,000 more. That number, when considered over the course of an entire career, is relatively small. It is simply not worth it for a future plumber to spend four years in college amassing debt. There is nothing wrong with being a plumber. However, it makes more sense to gain on the job learning and experience, than to run up debt getting an unnecessary degree. While this may seem like common sense, the Census Bureau's 2009 report showed that 20% of individuals making less than $20,000 a year have bachelor's or master's degrees. It can be said, with a high degree of certainty, that those jobs do not require college degrees. Admittedly, many of those individuals are probably not employed in their dream job. However, that does show that they are not getting the job they went to college for. If going to college won't even get you the job you want, why would it make sense to go? Also, the gains that students are reaping from college, are going down. In 1991 college graduates made, on average, 1.48 times what high school graduates did. That number grew until 2000, when it peaked at 1.68 times. It then began to fall. In 2009, in was only 1.54 times. Not only that, over the same period of time, college tuition grew 300%. Students today are paying more, for less. It doesn't even stop there. College students are not learning much either. The National Assessment of Adult Literacy found that only 29% of college graduates read at an advanced level. Other studies have found that students show little to no academic progress by their sophomore year and that they only study outside of class for 14 hours a week. To put that number in context, college students studied outside of class for 24 hours a week in 1961. Like Jenna Robinson, I am unwilling to declare a college degree useless. However, students should carefully consider their options, in light of their career choice, before choosing college. If you are going to pay more, be sure that you are not one of those getting less for it.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Summary and Response
In this post I will be summarizing part of an article and then responding to the article. The article that I will be using is, Over Invested and Over Priced, American Higher Education Today. It can be found on the center for college affordability's website. The direct link is http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Over_Invested_Final.pdf. There are a few good signs of credibility in this article. One sign of credibility is the author. Richard Vedder is the director at the center for college affordability and productivity, as well as being a distinguished professor of economics at Ohio university. Richard Vedder is also a published author on the subject of college costs. Another sign of credibility is that his article appears on the site of a not for profit research center devoted to researching rising costs and the issue of stagnating efficiency in higher education. The final reason that I am using this article is that it contains current information. While I could not find the actual date that the article was written it cites surveys from within the past six or seven years frequently. I will only be using part of this article due to its length and depth. I will be using the sections entitled, Why are universities overpriced?, and, What should we do?. I am using these two sections because they are closest to my focus. These sections help answer my questions about whether or not colleges really are overpriced, and, if they are, what we should do.
One reason colleges are overpriced is that they are using more resources to produce graduates as time goes on. In most fields, the amount of resources being used is dropping due to technology, but not in college. University proponents will cite the Baumol effect as the reason for this. The Baumol effect is that in the fine arts the productivity of employees can not be increased, so the relative cost rises. The question is, is this a legitimate argument when it comes to college professors? After all, they are in many ways similar to an actor. They stand in front of a class and deliver their lesson, much as an actor delivers his lines. Couldn't the productivity be increased by using technology? By, for example, taping lectures to be used again. Even though these methods have been shown to have promise, colleges are still reluctant to use them. A final reason that colleges are overpriced is that the non-teaching staff has increased. Colleges are now hiring more people to do the same jobs, which causes a rise in price. What then should we do? According to Charles Koch "Market based management" needs to be introduced to colleges and universities. Part of this would be limiting government aid to colleges. Some useful reforms would be to increase the teaching loads on professors, eliminate low enrollment costly graduate programs, and use technology to lower costs. Unless costs are contained, our return on investment will drop.
I agree with much, but not all, of what Richard Vedder says. I think that he makes a very good point when he talks about the amount of resources being used to educate college students. Often colleges are investing in resources not even directly related to their students education, non-instructional staff for example. Not only does hiring more non-instructional staff drive the cost of college up, it could be taking away from student job opportunities. Also, while Richard Vedder does not say so directly, the same thinking could be applied to the extra amenities that colleges are now providing. Just as extra non-instructional staff is often not necessary, climbing walls, gyms, and over sized dorms are not necessary. I think that Richard Vedder brings up some interesting questions when he addresses technology in the classroom. I do not believe however, that you could replace professors with advanced technology. For certain lectures in certain classes it would be possible to use a taped lecture, but certainly not in all situations. While technology could help decrease costs in certain areas, I do not believe that the classroom is one of them. It can be a helpful teaching aid, but it could not replace a teacher. I think that Dr. Vedder also brings up a few good points when addressing what we should do. The amount of government aid provided to students is often too much. Students easily receive aid, which increases enrollment, which in turn continues to drive the price up. If we limit government aid, we will find the students that really want to be at college. It will decrease enrollment, and, in theory, limit the cost of college. I think that Dr. Vedder also suggests some good reforms. While not all college professors are only teaching one or two classes, some are. It would make sense to eliminate the teaching assistants in these cases, and have the professor teach the classes himself. Another reform that I think makes a lot of sense would be to eliminate a program that has a low enrollment rate. This would result in colleges with more specialized focuses, as well as driving the price down. It would then be possible to have professors more devoted to their subject, which would result in a better education, as well as a cheaper one. In closing, I definitely agree with Dr. Vedder that many colleges are overpriced. He identifies some of what we are really paying for, which is an important consideration when thinking about college. While I believe that college will never be for everyone, if some of these reforms are enacted, it could become a sensible option for more people.
One reason colleges are overpriced is that they are using more resources to produce graduates as time goes on. In most fields, the amount of resources being used is dropping due to technology, but not in college. University proponents will cite the Baumol effect as the reason for this. The Baumol effect is that in the fine arts the productivity of employees can not be increased, so the relative cost rises. The question is, is this a legitimate argument when it comes to college professors? After all, they are in many ways similar to an actor. They stand in front of a class and deliver their lesson, much as an actor delivers his lines. Couldn't the productivity be increased by using technology? By, for example, taping lectures to be used again. Even though these methods have been shown to have promise, colleges are still reluctant to use them. A final reason that colleges are overpriced is that the non-teaching staff has increased. Colleges are now hiring more people to do the same jobs, which causes a rise in price. What then should we do? According to Charles Koch "Market based management" needs to be introduced to colleges and universities. Part of this would be limiting government aid to colleges. Some useful reforms would be to increase the teaching loads on professors, eliminate low enrollment costly graduate programs, and use technology to lower costs. Unless costs are contained, our return on investment will drop.
I agree with much, but not all, of what Richard Vedder says. I think that he makes a very good point when he talks about the amount of resources being used to educate college students. Often colleges are investing in resources not even directly related to their students education, non-instructional staff for example. Not only does hiring more non-instructional staff drive the cost of college up, it could be taking away from student job opportunities. Also, while Richard Vedder does not say so directly, the same thinking could be applied to the extra amenities that colleges are now providing. Just as extra non-instructional staff is often not necessary, climbing walls, gyms, and over sized dorms are not necessary. I think that Richard Vedder brings up some interesting questions when he addresses technology in the classroom. I do not believe however, that you could replace professors with advanced technology. For certain lectures in certain classes it would be possible to use a taped lecture, but certainly not in all situations. While technology could help decrease costs in certain areas, I do not believe that the classroom is one of them. It can be a helpful teaching aid, but it could not replace a teacher. I think that Dr. Vedder also brings up a few good points when addressing what we should do. The amount of government aid provided to students is often too much. Students easily receive aid, which increases enrollment, which in turn continues to drive the price up. If we limit government aid, we will find the students that really want to be at college. It will decrease enrollment, and, in theory, limit the cost of college. I think that Dr. Vedder also suggests some good reforms. While not all college professors are only teaching one or two classes, some are. It would make sense to eliminate the teaching assistants in these cases, and have the professor teach the classes himself. Another reform that I think makes a lot of sense would be to eliminate a program that has a low enrollment rate. This would result in colleges with more specialized focuses, as well as driving the price down. It would then be possible to have professors more devoted to their subject, which would result in a better education, as well as a cheaper one. In closing, I definitely agree with Dr. Vedder that many colleges are overpriced. He identifies some of what we are really paying for, which is an important consideration when thinking about college. While I believe that college will never be for everyone, if some of these reforms are enacted, it could become a sensible option for more people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)