h a l f b a k e r yNot from concentrate.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
There's too much credence being placed in getting
into the
'good schools,' which just gives schools marketing
room
to raise their prices. We need to remodel how they
are priced in the public economy based on standard
commodity lessons.
Taking away the 'branding' of public
universities
as much as reasonably possible makes
this
much more achievable.
We need to price schools by labor, class credit
hours, and
content, based on 'production costs,' not 'perceived
value.'
With objective sciences in which there are right and
wrong
answers, this should be achievable. There will
always be
better and worse reputations, but we needn't amplify
them.
State schools covering the same subjects should all
have
similar pricing, accounting for regional cost of living
adjustments.
Genericized community colleges can cover the
common core subjects such as what is offered
during freshman and sophomore years. Should a
student desire education beyond that offering, the
private schools can focus on those, and not worry
about the core subjects. This should provide them
more space to work and less overhead.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Universities should be made affordable, that's for sure. In
the UK, university education was free until not so long ago.
That included Oxford and Cambridge. Universities were
reimbursed by the government. I don't know if the
reimbursement per student was the same across all
universities, but I would guess it was. |
|
| |
Should universities be "de-branded"? Absolutely not. It
would be a disaster. At the moment, there is a "race to the
bottom" amongst universities in general, now that students
are customers. This would just make it worse. |
|
| |
If I'm hiring, I want to hire someone from Cambridge (not
Oxford), because Cambridge has an outstanding (though
now deteriorating) reputation in my field of research. |
|
| |
If you want to campaign for something, campaign to stop
education being something you buy. |
|
| |
//university education was free // |
|
| |
Sp. "paid for by someone else" |
|
| |
// Universities were reimbursed by the government. // |
|
| |
Sp. "Universities were paid for by the unfortunate taxpayers, whether they wanted to, or benefited from it, or not." |
|
| |
And don't start with that stupid "Let's teach women and poor people to read" stuff again. You know it only causes trouble. |
|
| |
//If I'm hiring, I want to hire someone from Cambridge
(not Oxford), because Cambridge has an outstanding
(though now deteriorating) reputation in my field of
research.//
I think there is a distinction between
hiring people of the back of (a) the research that they
have undertaken in a post-graduate context and (b) their
undergraduate degree. Max's point may well hold for the
former (I don't know, that's not my scene) but it doesn't
hold for the latter. I don't say this because I didn't go to
a Russell Group university (but I didn't), I say it because in
my field, the ratio of dullards to capable professionals is
the same across Russell and non-Russell group graduates.
That the hiring skews towards Russell group is (again, in
my field) more a function of the secondary schools that
my colleagues attended than it is of their choice of
university. Indeed, the choice of university is also a
function of their secondary school. |
|
| |
So, in sum, it doesn't matter what university you went to
for your undergraduate course, it matters whether you
are capable of learning, capable of speaking in something
approximating sentences and capable of remembering the
signs of a properly wiped arse. All the rest can be
learned on the job. |
|
| |
Yes, [8th], universities were paid for by the taxpayers, at the government's
behest, because it was believed that an educated population would be of
benefit to the country. I think it was one of the better uses of taxpayers'
money, and it turns out that the government was right. |
|
| |
A free university education was, at that time, based largely on merit - i.e.
whether you were smart enough to get in. Then Tony Bleagh decided that
everyone needed a degree, which of course meant that they'd all have to pay
for it themselves. As a result, universities are now in the industry of selling
degrees, which used to be illegal but is now the accepted business model. |
|
| |
I appreciate that a degree (or even basic literacy and numeracy) is not a
requirement in your own line of work (whatever that may be), but in other
situations it can be an advantage. |
|
| |
Regardless of whether Cambridge was better or
worse than Oxford, both taught courses like
Vibrations 200 and Circuits 102 which are not
terribly different in any competent institution. A
$3000 per credit hour course in a 101 class at one
institution looks a lot like a $200 per credit hour
class in 2 year's time or less. The only difference is
the bill. |
|
| |
Were you actually at Cambridge or Oxford? No disrespect, but
I was and I know what it was like being at Cambridge from Day
1. There are reasons why top universities are top universities.
I would be very surprised if this were not also true of Yale or
Harvard. |
|
| |
//There are reasons why top universities are top
universities.//
How many of these reasons are money? |
|
| |
Money is definitely a large part of it. However, in the case of
the best UK universities, they are (or at least were for 772
years; I can't vouch for the last 35) good because they are
hard to get into. Cambridge is a good university because (a) it
has the money to hire good people and (b) it is still incredibly
selective, at least for UK students. But this selectivity is
being eroded because every customer turned away is money
lost. |
|
| |
//it doesn't matter what university you went to for your
undergraduate course// Maybe not in all disciplines. I do
know that in sciences, Cambridge undergraduates simply
cover a lot more. That starts from day 1. By the end of the
degree, a Cambridge undergraduate in sciences just knows a
lot more than an undergraduate from most other UK
universities. |
|
| |
That's interesting but not incompatible with the model
Rayford is putting forward: if the cost of the delivery is
greater because there is more delivery, then more can be
paid without breaking the model. In fact, making the
outcomes modular allows for rich people to learn more,
and
so be able to earn more and so entrench capital and
prospects all the better with
a narrow class. Which is what happens now
anyway, particularly with those universities which are
predisposed to admitting students who went to uh posh
schools. |
|
| |
The more I think about it, the Rayford Model comes to
the same conclusion, unless we also genericise the
economic benefits of being smart. If we don't, then
teachers who are able to teach more and quicker will be
able to charge more, which will drive up the cost of
production and so the divide starts to grow again. |
|
| |
Perhaps the thing to do is to get rid of either rich people
or poor people, I can't decide. |
|
| |
<8th of 7>or just all people</8th of 7> |
|
| |
Here in the states you could randomize student and
professor alma mater assignments so that self-
selection factors don't play a large role, like an NFL
draft. |
|
| |
You could still opt to attend private universities
which could maintain their own cost structures. |
|
| |
At Gen U they wouldn't do research. Perhaps the
profs could do something akin to a teaching
residency there before moving on to the private u
practices or being tenured. |
|
| |
More general idea is de-branding organizations by referring to them by
IDs, and branding industries, which
represent socio-economic goals, making it cool to study (or work) in
X industry, and not university X... ( But good luck with that, when
everyone
is incentivized to be different and exceptional in meaningless
arrangement of 6 or 7 letters, instead of true creativity in the sense of
science and engineering. ) |
|
| |
So, solar panel companies that own football
leagues? |
|
| |
[RayfordSteele], yes, something like that! :) Solar panels as a brand
behind all companies that make them and research groups that study,
uniting all towards that mission. |
|
| |
True science comes down to facts, not emotional branding of the facts. People can have the exceptional and also hold the ridiculous. |
|
| |
I'm sure the branding on Universities is just the same. Hopefully those higher class labels indicate less of of the ridiculous but it is not assured. |
|
| |
Genericized Universities would make everyone judge on a case by case basis, which, to me, is naturally a good thing. Even if the case is getting exponentially bigger. |
|
| |
Isn't DIY independent online learning going in this direction from the bottom up? |
|
| |
In some more advanced EU countries, going to
University is either free or of minimal cost. In
Germany it's free. In the Netherlands it's 2k€ per
year and there is the prospect of that being
halved. Places that favour further education as
being the exclusive preserve for the wealthy or the
privileged (like the UK and USA) tend to charge
mega-money, and run their Universities as money
making businesses. |
|
| |
In the UK it's worse than that. First, we discarded the "free
university" model in, I don't know, the 90s I guess. |
|
| |
But then Tony Bleagh decided everyone needed a degree, and
arranged a student loan system to make it possible. As a
result, there is now only a modest bias towards the wealthy,
but there is no bias towards the most gifted students. The
whole system is dumbing down. |
|
| |
Much of what goes on the UK is inclined now towards a combination of "oikism" and dumbing down - brexit being the perfect example, with the ascendence of a Trump replica moron like Farage being a particularly depressing feature. I'm glad I spend most of my time in a flourishing, progressive EU country now. The UK is depressing, grim, chaotic, directionless and falling apart. The University mess is just a symptom of a greater stupidy being realised. The UK is now like a person who sets fire to their pockets in the only coat they have, to act as hand warmers on a cold day. |
|
| |
Gents, if you live in Scotland, and attend a Scottish
university, the cost of your tuition is zero if you meet the
eligibility criteria, and about £1,800pa if you don't. Forrins,
which includes the English, pay the same £9,000. Americans
will find these numbers trifling, I am sure. |
|
| |
Yes, but you come out with a degree in haggis. |
|
| |
//Forrins, which includes the English, pay the same £9,000// - although if you're from Yurp you pay £0 |
|
| |
//But then Tony Bleagh decided everyone needed a
degree, and
arranged a student loan system to make it possible. As a
result, there
is now only a modest bias towards the wealthy, but there
is no bias
towards the most gifted students. The whole system is
dumbing
down.//
I'm struggling to see the harm. Arguably the
average
intelligence of a UK university student is lower than it
would have
been in the 1950s (for example) but that does not reflect
badly upon
or damage the prestige of those students who go to the
elite
universities (on the contrary, it helps them be the
metaphorical
stream of bat's piss). What the increased availability and
provision of
university education does is improve the national average
in terms of
educational experience, which is in my mind A Good
Thing. |
|
| |
I am not a huge fan of Blair or his projects (and would
argue that
redbrickery predates him by some considerable time) but
I do think
that he was correct that (a) school-level education in the
UK is not
likely to be sufficient in a largely service based economy
and (b)
putting people in full time education sure does help with
those pesky
youth unemployment figures. |
|
| |
///Forrins, which includes the English, pay the same
£9,000// - although if you're from Yurp you pay £0//
I did not know this! But I am in favour. |
|
| |
Apologies for the derail, Rayford. |
|
| |
Haggis tech is pretty serious business. I think rocket scientists and synbio experts could do well to study the niceties of suet grading and spice combining, not to mention the logistical issues of sourcing lights. |
|
| |
To be fair, that sourcing issue is of greater concern to the
sheep than to the haggis engineer. |
|
| |
I might apply for a grant to develop a new degree course in Haggis carving, just for Scotland naturally. |
|
| |
You'll need to catch your haggis first |
|
| |
//Were you actually at Cambridge or Oxford?// |
|
| |
No. I was at Rose-Hulman, the first school in the
nation to offer a chemical engineering degree, and
subscriber to the Cambridge model of accelerated
studies. |
|
| |
though even accreditation is often questionable, the first
step is to separate accreditation from college. It would
be far better that if you had to achieve a Bachelor of
Engineering or Science you had to take a test, and how
you prepare for that test was a matter of choice. |
|
| |
Imagine how much more productive the economy would
be, if instead of paying $200K to go to college you were
paid anything, even poverty rate salary over the same 4
years to be an apprentice in the same company you hope
to work for after college. Hell, even if you had to pay
them for the privilege you'd be better off. |
|
| |
Take the so called "core curriculum" of things everyone
must pass to graduate, be it English 101, etc, and move it
to the high school curriculum, where it's already free. |
|
| |
focus schools an preparing for accredited degrees. |
|
| |
Four years in a liberal arts private university is an upper
class (or at least an upper middle class) luxury that
somehow migrated into a necessity. It's utterly pointless -
- you don't need a college degree for most of the jobs
attained with an English or Psychology degree, and you
need other accreditation anyway when it's close (e.g.
teaching jobs). |
|
| |
If you have no hope of getting a real engineering or
science degree, even if you're Ernst Hemingway (and
perhaps especially so), you have no business being in
college. If you want to be a lawyer you should be able to
start studying law without a prior college degree. If you
want to learn history watch Ancient Aliens. Or read
books. |
|
| |
//if instead of paying $200K to go to college you were paid
anything, even poverty rate salary over the same 4 years to
be an apprentice in the same company you hope to work for
after college// That happens. My daughter's PhD is
sponsored by Rolls Royce (aeroengines). |
|
| |
//Take the so called "core curriculum" of things everyone
must pass to graduate, be it English 101, etc, and move it to
the high school curriculum// That also happens. In the UK,
students are expected to have passed A-levels which are,
roughly, the equivalent of Year 1 of a US degree. That's
why most UK degrees are 3 years long (though there is a
trend nowadays to spin them out to 4, awarding an MA or
MSc in addition to a BA or BSc). |
|
| |
//paying $200K// Jeeezus - seriously? That's just insane. |
|
| |
I America if you can throw a ball for about a half mile, you can get into any University, and may well end up being the President. (oh wait, that's the golf ball version) |
|
| |
[MB] I'm aware this happens for graduate school, my point
is it could happen instead of the four year degree. |
|
| |
Someone who graduated with a Masters in English from,
say, NYU, would have spent (or borrowed) over 300K. |
|
| |
State and city schools are typically both excellent and
much cheaper, but bourgeois prestige and unwillingness
to tell privileged kids no drives many to private schools
(and in many cases to state schools out of state, which
negates the cost savings) |
|
| |
When our Dems talk about making college free, they is
almost no scenario where that gets as far as NYU or the
Ivy League schools, but they will likely push to make city
and state schools free. Of course the privilege fighters
would ultimately argue that this will only devalue those
educations as opposed to the ones you actually have to
pay for. |
|
| |
It's a big industry in the US, growing fast -- but likely to
face a collapse soon enough |
|
| |
Any nation where people can say "I couldn't afford the
education" is a sick nation. Especially if it's as wealthy as
the US. But the UK isn't much better. Tuition fees can be
up to £9000 (say $16K) per year, or $48K for a three-year
degree. And that doesn't include actual living costs. It's an
absolute fucking crime. |
|
| |
I'm angry about it largely because I went through university
at no cost to myself or my parents (who weren't rich, but
weren't broke either). The state paid not only for tuition,
but also a living allowance that was just about enough to
actually live on. The idea of having a job in addition to
being a student was insane. I hate knowing that my
daughter is growing up in a less civilised country than I did. |
|
| |
Any nation where people can say "I couldn't afford the
education" is a sick nation. Especially if it's as wealthy as
the US. But the UK isn't much better. Tuition fees can be
up to £9000 (say $16K) per year, or $48K for a three-year
degree. And that doesn't include actual living costs. It's an
absolute fucking crime. |
|
| |
I'm angry about it largely because I went through university
at no cost to myself or my parents (who weren't rich, but
weren't broke either). The state paid not only for tuition,
but also a living allowance that was just about enough to
actually live on. The idea of having a job in addition to
being a student was insane. I hate knowing that my
daughter is growing up in a less civilised country than I did. |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan], it's more-or-less the same in New
Zealand.
<rant>
There are 3 facets:
1: "Everyone should go to University"
2: Universities are a for-profit business
3: The student loan scheme
By wanting everyone to go to university (probably brought
on by politicians or administrators with stupid children),
the courses need to be dumbed-down somewhat. Lots
more students requires more staff, who would like to get
paid, so more money is required. But instead of the
government giving more money to the universities, some
genius decided it was a better idea to LOAN it to the
students, who eventually must pay it back. Meanwhile,
because everyone and their uncle has a dumbed-down
degree, the dregrees become effectively worthless.
So you have a huge number of people with worthless
degrees and a huge debt!
University is (was...) "higher education". A degree was a
respected accomplishment.
It's something I really don't understand: "normal" people
have absolutely no problem with physical elitism (all the
worshipped sports stars...) but as soon as some-one
mentions intellectual elitism they're all "no no we can't
have that".
University should be for the smartest 10% or 15% of us,
regardless of financial or social status. Entry should be
due to the results of an entry exam (or whatever) not the
size of your checkbook.
Grr!!
</rant> |
|
| |
Wow. Who knew New Zealand was so much like England? |
|
| |
48k per degree? I'm sending my kids to school in the
UK. What does it take to become a citizen there? |
|
| |
Rose these days is 48k or more per year. |
|
| |
//campaign to stop education being something you buy.// |
|
| |
Yep, trying to put kids through university with blood, sweat, and grit is a bitch. |
|
| |
the main problem is student loans which enable the schools
to raise prices. It's an unholy alliance of commercial
interest and government programs. Demand combined with
loan availability which is not correlated to the degree's
monetary value have caused the prices to skyrocket. |
|
| |
Yep. It's insane. And it's the demand that is devaluing the
degrees. Not only are they easier to get (because, as
customers, pretty much everyone has to pass), but now that
everyone has one they mean less. |
|
| |
It's also worse for people who don't get degrees. Having a
degree is irrelevant in many professions - in fact, experience
is often worth more than a degree. But now things like
apprenticeships are denigrated. |
|
| |
I would have thought that if >50% of people have a degree, then not having one becomes a mark of distinction? At an extreme, if 90% of applications for a position have degrees, then the 10% without become notable, and invite further questioning as to why not, and why they might nonetheless consider it worth applying. |
|
| |
In NZ, we had an apprentice scheme; basically the
government pays the apprentice's wage instead of the
company they're working/learning for (I don't know the
exact details...).
But (late 1980's, IIRC) the government decided that this
was a Bad Idea, and canned it. So for a long time, there
were no apprentices coming up through the trades (etc).
So they all had to go through polytechs to learn the skills,
which (of course) cost more money.
Finally a few years ago (maybe 10; I forget) the
apprentice scheme was re-introduced, so people can
learn "on-the-job" once again. |
|
| |
All education, just like all health care, should be free of
charge and declared a human right. Me say. |
|
| |
Remember, folks, a vote for [blissmiss] is a vote for
[blissmiss]! |
|
| |
If I could afford it I would gladly spend the portion of my life I now spend busting my ass knocking one course after another out of the park... credentials be damned, just for my own self. |
|
| |
You know that, instead of spending all that time getting a PhD, you can just change your first name to 'Doctor'? |
|
| |
Weight should on Technical institutes, Polytechs, I think Community Colleges in the States. to take the un-directed young. Work could help in this respect. |
|
| |
This would be a way of producing well balanced, semi-informed, knowledge enthusiastic public. If people do exceptionally, or have an exceptional thirst in a particular area then University is for them. It should be higher learning, not the average general knowledge society needs to run. |
|
| |
Genetic Universities could be a thing, with
selective breeding programmes...... Oh wait,
perhaps not. Ha! |
|
| |
There is the complication that in the States, technical institutes and
colleges and universities are not so easily separated by their
descriptors. MIT is not a community college or peddler of subprime
associated degrees in gun repair. 'University of Phoenix' is not a
university worthy of the name. I battle this all the time when I tell
people about my exceedingly small if nightmarishly difficult school
which is an Institute of Technology. City College of New York is well-
respected. Cooper Union is as well, but what, a union? |
|
| |
The CUNY system is great and much much cheaper. In
Jersey Rutgers and TCNJ are great, and relatively cheap. |
|
| |
The problem is that many kids want to go to private schools
or go out of state for bizarre reasons like football or
basketball team status. Again, they complain about it, but
it's largely a matter of privilege, they should have gone
locally and to where they can afford. |
|
| |
Wait. They have a system in the US called CUNY?? Snigger
snigger. |
|
| |
Yes that's where I got my bacchanal from |
|
| |
Good thing northern Texas doesn't have a university. |
|
| |