About College Education, Cost, and Whose Fault is It Anyway? February 17, 2016Posted by Peter Varhol in Education, Uncategorized.
Tags: cost, higher education
add a comment
I care deeply about higher education. It is what enabled me to transition from a working class household to the upper middle class as an adult. A successful decade-plus in higher education has paid off well for me.
My BA work came at an interesting confluence in my family’s economic history. It seemed that in a couple of years leading up to my college life, the wages of an average steelworker increased more than enough to pay for three years at a private college, with some minor help from financial aid. Of course, it helped that I went to one of the least expensive private colleges available. And of course, the steel mills in the Pittsburgh area went away a few years afterward, because the economic model agreed to by the owners and the labor was ultimately unsustainable.
I paid for the next three degrees myself, as a young adult professional. I accept no accolades for it; it was just what I wanted to do with my life at that point. Others have done it more efficiently, but I got it done well enough to have a reasonably successful career.
In time, I became a college professor, first adjunct, then tenure track. And I was exposed to how sausage was made, college finance style. The colleges that I taught at didn’t care one whit about what they charged students. They didn’t even really care about the students, to the point of not acknowledging them as customers. There was an implicit but very real assumption that parents, the government, or loans would pay for whatever they happened to charge. I say this starkly, with dislike, because the colleges didn’t really like or appreciate their students, in a financial sense.
So where am I going with this? I just had the brash sense to respond to a LinkedIn accolade wherein Senator Elizabeth Warren complains that banks pay very low interest rates, yet charge students market rates for college loans.
I actually like Elizabeth Warren. I think she says a lot of things that need to be said in a public discourse.
But I think she is mostly wrong. College loans require servicing, and college students occasionally default (I realize that they can’t really default on Federal loans, but that also doesn’t mean that they always pay them back; they don’t). And yes, banks aren’t in the business of providing a public service; they are in the business of making a reasonable return off of the risks that they take. She seems to have conveniently forgotten that part of the equation.
Most of the blame here is on the colleges, who really didn’t (don’t) care what the bill came to. I could go on, but I became fed up with the incredible arrogance of colleges in believing absolutely that their bill would be paid, by someone. Some of the blame is on the parents, who want their children to have the same college experiences that they did, without realizing that higher education today is different. And they are the ones that have to educate their children on the education alternatives, and what is within the realm of affordability and expectation.
Take a deep breath, Peter. So here’s what I think. I think that the vast majority of students need to have a realistic understanding of what they can pay for, and seek out an education that meets the expectations of their life aspirations. That doesn’t have to involve compromise, but it does involve research. And it requires the support of the parents, who I think are mostly ill-equipped to provide that support.
But I really think that this falls on the colleges, who steadfastly refuse to look at their costs and charges, with an eye toward doing right by their students. I realize that there are probably exceptions here, but most colleges simply don’t care what their expenses are. They do have a minor interest in what they charge, but only in relation to what similar colleges charge. There is absolutely no concern with how the bill will be paid.
And that is a shame. And that is where Elizabeth Warren is truly wrong.
Science Education, Fear, and Our Reaction September 16, 2015Posted by Peter Varhol in Education.
Tags: education, science
add a comment
This is the story of the Irving, Texas school district and its wild and likely liable overreaction to a Muslim student building a novel clock. That said, it’s more about the education establishment and its poor relationship with science and technology.
I had the opportunity recently to hear about a teacher in Wilmington, North Carolina who was supporting her third grade students in a project to build a frog habitat in conjunction with the North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher. I did a backstage tour there several years ago, and found it a wonderful and educational experience.
My grandnephew (I don’t really feel as old as that sounds) is a participating student, and I contributed a small amount of money to the effort. I received a long and personal thank you from the teacher. I would like to quote from that thank you. I don’t have her permission to use her name, but for those of you who care, I hope that you know who she is.
“I’m very interested in science. I’m not sure how much you know of the back ground of an elementary education major, but it has little to do with the content of science. My first year teach [sic] in 5th grade, years ago, the Science End of Grade test was implemented by the state. Our students failed. Upon figuring out why, it came down to teachers knowing content. We are not taught science-specific content in a general elementary ed degree. So I taught myself science so my students could be successful. I continue to do so. I’ve since been placed in 4th grade (last year) and 3rd grade (this year), so I am learning new content with the hope that this will make science instruction easier on my 5th grade colleagues and even more so on the success of the students.”
You have to love teachers like this, who seem light-years away from those in Irving who participated in this debacle, and who continue to try to justify it. The Irving teachers are little people who seek to control our youth, not enable them. And, regrettably, you have to reject our society’s approach to science in our schools, and how we train our educators in that regard. That fact that we don’t train them at all should be frightening to any reasonable American.
Those of you who read me know that I am highly supportive of education, yet am justifiably distrustful of the education establishment. The Irving school district has proven me correct in that attitude. As individuals, we cannot measurably effect change. Together, as a voice, we may be able to raise the bar just a little bit.
Our Love/Hate Relationship with Higher Education August 10, 2015Posted by Peter Varhol in Education.
Tags: college, MOOC
add a comment
Perhaps I should call this “my” love/hate relationship. Like most adults, I am a big proponent of higher education. More knowledge is better than less. I have several degrees. I taught college for a decade and a half.
At the same time, I think the higher education establishment is stupid and clueless about their markets; in other words, students and their parents. I was present for an almost 20 percent increase in tuition at one of my colleges in the 1990s, which occurred not because of a significant increase in spending (college spending and tuition are not correlated), but because the powers-that-be presumed that in order to be considered a prestigious institution, they needed a price tag to match. Seriously.
I was in one faculty meeting where the topic of the school’s customers came up. The resulting cry was loud and nearly unanimous: “We don’t have customers! We have students!”
Yet we as a society continue to give (not-for-profit) higher education a pass. No matter how much higher learning raises tuition, we continue to believe that our children have a fundamental right to the higher education of their choice, no matter what the cost (disclosure: I am childless).
Some of this is due to the entitled attitude of the higher education establishment. More than 20 years ago, I had a department chair who was absolutely convinced that we had perfected higher education, and desperately fought any changes to the residential, in-class model.
But a big part of the problem is, I think, the parents. Successful middle and upper class parents want desperately for their children to have the same foundational experiences as they did, thirty years earlier. Never mind that today’s world in no way resembles the one in which they grew up.
Some of that may well be due to the drastic changes in growing up over the last two or three decades. Our last chance to share a common youth with our children is through a shared college experience. I don’t know; I’m not a psychologist (hold on; yes, I am). I fear that both parents and their children will be doomed to disappointment (perhaps not so much the children). The experience will in all likelihood not be common, and certainly not shared.
I believe that traditional higher education has a good purpose, though not the central purpose it had one or two generations ago. Today, there are so many ways to learn – residential universities, community colleges, MOOCs, and (yes) YouTube – and young adults have a rich array of choices that meet their career needs, curiosities, and budgets. At this point, it is their parents’ expectations, and societies’ preconceptions that are holding them back. I, for one, hope for fundamental change soon.
The problem is not ability to pay; it is that colleges don’t care if they are affordable.
A Matter of Education July 31, 2015Posted by Peter Varhol in Education.
Tags: higher education, MOOC
add a comment
After years of less-than-flattering portrayals, the walls seem to have started crumbling for for-profit higher education institutions. Corinthian Colleges has closed entirely, and ITT and the University of Phoenix are undergoing investigation. In addition, enrollment has been on a downward trajectory, with the University of Phoenix shrinking by perhaps 50,000 students over the last year.
This state of affairs leaves me with mixed emotions. Let me establish some credentials. While no longer in higher education, I taught for over fifteen years, as an adjunct, tenure track full time faculty, and online instructor. I value education, and remain a lifelong learner through the MOOC vehicles.
There is nothing inherent in a for-profit status that makes it a less quality choice for education. In fact, many so-call not-for-profit schools do, in fact, make a profit, although with their tax status, it is usually referred to as “retained earnings”. (Disclosure – I am certainly not a tax expert, but this distinction between the two types of entities is fairly fundamental).
In particular, I think that the education delivered by both is fairly comparable. Granted, this is based on my experiences teaching technical courses, but based on the instructor preparation and curriculum provided, is true throughout.
There is certainly a difference in culture. At most traditional schools, time seems to have stopped years (decades) ago. I once had a senior faculty member tell me that universities had perfected instruction with small, in-person classes, and there was no need for innovation. Regrettably, this is what passes for critical thought at most universities.
I applaud for-profit schools for shaking up the status quo, and trying new education models. Even if they don’t work, it’s a big advance over the failure of traditional schools to embrace innovation.
But for-profit schools have a problem. I think that problem is one of being too aggressive at opening up opportunities (yes, I’m being generous). Despite the democratization of higher education (which as a scion of the working class, I fully approve of), there are young people who should not be in college. By admitting everyone, and gaming the financial aid system, they are setting up tens of thousands of people for failure.
To be fair, not-for-profit higher education also games the financial aid system, but not with the aggressiveness of their for-profit brethren. There is where the problem lies. I think it can be fixed, but only if for-profit schools acknowledge not only their strengths, but also their shortcomings.
Has the College Season Changed? April 5, 2015Posted by Peter Varhol in Education, Technology and Culture.
Tags: admissions higher education, college
add a comment
I first went to college over a generation ago, as one of the first of my extended family to attend college (my sister was first, followed by a cousin, but college was an option only for my generation; my parents never finished high school). It was a haphazard process; there wasn’t anyone to turn to for advice, and of course it was pre-Internet.
So, thirty-plus years ago, you would apply to maybe three-to-five schools, because each school had an application fee of anywhere between $25 and $100 bucks (I shouldn’t be embarrassed to say that $100 bucks meant whether or not our family was going to eat that week). Plus, each application was several pages long, and easily required several hours to write out by hand.
You found out about colleges through old-fashioned thumbing through old catalogs and brochures in the school library or guidance office. Your research was hardly comprehensive or unbiased, so you may well have ended up with a handful of schools that were nowhere near the best selections.
You may or may not have gotten accepted to all of them. Of those you were accepted to, you might want to visit one or two campuses, and not in this way.
Some things have changed in the next 30 years. The application process is typically online, and the fees tend to be more reasonable (at least in adjusted dollars). College visits tend to be more organized, with specific days set aside for group activities.
Many things do not appear to have changed. The timeframe for application and admissions seems to be approximately equal, although I would imagine that decisions can be made a lot more quickly by analyzing data on applicants. And there is just as much emphasis on campus visits and feeling “comfortable” with the campus and (to a much lesser extent) the people.
There is some justification for that. Teens are likely leaving home for the first time, and there is good reason for them to be emotionally and physically comfortable with that decision.
But in an era where college tuition has increased at double the rate of inflation through most of my adult life, and universities drag their feet in moving forward, I’m not sure that’s the deciding factor any more. Cost, utility, and flexibility may have overtaken the physical plant as the primary means of deciding on a college. There are many ways to begin and complete a degree, and the traditional four years (or more) residing on a campus seem, at least to me, to be less important than they were 30+ years ago.
I’m not a parent, and I haven’t had to go through this process with teens. But I suspect that parents, my age to perhaps a decade younger, are projecting their own experiences on their college age children, and are encouraging them to make exactly the wrong decisions for this day and age.
I also raise this because I’m concerned about higher education. I was a tenure-track professor, back in the day, I was discouraged by the total lack of imagination and innovation on college campuses. My department chair was convinced that we had perfected higher education twenty years ago, and no changes were necessary. If these are our best and brightest, I wonder just what direction they are leading the youth of today.
Can Radio Shack Be Saved? August 6, 2014Posted by Peter Varhol in Education, Software platforms, Technology and Culture.
Tags: Radio Shack, Raspberry Pi
add a comment
Nothing that I can say or do will be the magic potion that rescues Radio Shack from oblivion. I certainly hold no influence over its financial or strategic direction, and of course any solution I might suggest could well be recognized by anyone else as pure hokey.
But I am sad to see the demise of an institution that represented its own brand of counterculture in my youth. That counterculture was embodied in the likes of Popular Science and other periodicals of the day that told us that the sky was the limit on our technological achievements. Radio Shack followed up that exhortation by telling us we could build it ourselves, and in many cases showing us how to do so.
If you walk into a Radio Shack today, you are bombarded with cell phones and subscriber plans that you can get in a dozen different stores within walking distance. The rest is a hodgepodge of electronic components, gadgets, and leftovers from a bygone era. My last purchase at a Radio Shack was a USB turntable, for which I had grandiose notions of using to convert my ancient LP trove into MP3s (the sound quality is terrible).
I wonder if it would be possible for Radio Shack to go back to its roots? What brings that to mind is my recent foray into Raspberry Pi, the small and inexpensive computer board that was developed and sold with the idea of promoting the teaching of computer science in schools. It’s probably marginally profitable (the Raspberry Pi Foundation is a non-profit), but for thought leadership it is pure gold.
But what if a small and focused engineering team at Radio Shack had developed something like this instead? And it was a headline promotion in every store? At one time there were people in Radio Shack who understood the technology sold by the company (Heath Kits, anyone?). Even the clerks were more nerds than sales people.
Granted, what I’m describing isn’t the enormous retail network that Radio Shack had become at its height. It’s not even clear that this could be a for-profit entity, at least in and of itself. But Radio Shack would once again stand for something, at least to get people in the door. It would certainly be no worse than anything else tried by the company over the last twenty years.
And products like this have the potential to excite the imagination of all people. We could build things with our own hands and understand how they work, rather than just take the technological complexity of our daily lives for granted. It may seem like a small thing, but people tend to better control that which they understand. And a little of that could benefit every one of us.
Do The Liberal Arts Matter? May 25, 2014Posted by Peter Varhol in Education.
Tags: Fareed Zakaria, liberal arts
add a comment
Well, yes, but not as a crutch.
Let me explore that a bit. For my sins, I have a liberal arts degree. My degree is in psychology and, late in my college career, a bunch of pre-medicine courses that could still be reasonably interpreted as the liberal arts. I went on for a masters in psychology, because I initially saw myself as a researcher, but moved to mathematics and computer science because that was what caught my attention.
The problem is that too many young people see the liberal arts, and business, as an easy route to a bachelors degree. They are in school, perhaps at their parents behest, or more reasonably because that was what was expected of them by their peers and society. Lacking direction, they seek the most efficient route to a degree, and all too often that means not fully exercising their intellect.
My story is slightly different. I was among the first of my extended family to go to college, and coming from a decidedly working class family, it was a bit of a transition. I didn’t have the perspective to understand what I wanted to do in life. I needed a certain level of emotional and intellectual maturity before diving into the hard sciences.
Fareed Zakaria says that he learned to write because of a liberal arts education. That sentiment is misguided. You can write with any degree. Fareed, the fact that you couldn’t write without a liberal arts degree is your problem, not the fault of your education. You most certainly could learn to write with a STEM degree. And people who graduate with a liberal arts degree don’t necessarily know how to write. If that is your best argument, you are doing the liberal arts a disservice.
What the liberal arts do is give you a broad education, and a foundation on which to build for the future. That future should, no must, include other education. If you are looking for the fastest way out of college, you are not getting a liberal arts education; you are cheating yourself.
I realize that this thesis requires some self-awareness of your goals and how to achieve them, something that I didn’t necessarily have at eighteen (and it’s not clear that I do now, but allow me a mulligan). But I did have an overriding desire to learn and understand. If you don’t, you are not getting a liberal arts education, whatever your major.
Mr. Zaharia conflates a curriculum with a learning process, and that is dangerously wrong. A liberal arts degree is valuable. But because you have one doesn’t mean you have a liberal arts education.
I Am 95 Percent Confident June 9, 2013Posted by Peter Varhol in Education, Technology and Culture.
Tags: big data, statistics
add a comment
I spent the first six years of my higher education studying psychology, along with a smattering of biology and chemistry. While most people don’t think of psychology as a disciplined science, I found an affinity with the scientific method, and with the analysis and interpretation of research data. I was good enough at it so that I went from there to get a masters degree in applied math.
I didn’t practice statistics much after that, but I’ve always maintained an excellent understanding of just how to interpret statistical techniques and their results. And we get it wrong all the time. For example:
- Correlation does not mean causation, even when variables are intuitively related. There may be cause and effect, or it could be in reverse (the dependent variable actually causes the corresponding value of the independent variable, rather than visa versa). Or both variables may be caused by another, unknown and untested variable. Or the result may simply have occurred through random chance. Either way, a correlation doesn’t tell me anything about whether or not two (or more) variables are related in a real world sense.
- Related to that, the coefficient of determination (R-squared) does not “explain” anything in a human sense. There is no explanation in our thought patterns. Most statistics books will say that the square of the correlation coefficient explains that amount of variation in the relationship between the variables. We interpret “explains” in a causative sense. Wrong. It’s simply that the movement between two variables is a mathematical relationship with that amount of variation. When I describe this, I prefer using the term “accounts for”.
- Last, if I’m 95 percent confident there is a statistically significant difference between two results (a common cutoff for concluding that the difference is a “real” one), our minds tend to interpret that conclusion as “I’m really pretty sure about this.” Wrong again. It means that if I conducted the study 100 times, I would draw the same conclusion 95 times. And that means five times I will draw the opposite conclusion.
- Okay, one more, related to that last one. Statistically significant does not mean significant in a practical sense. I may conduct a drug study that indicates that a particular drug under development significantly improves our ability to recover from a certain type of cancer. Sounds impressive, doesn’t it? But the sample size and definition of recovery could be such that that the drug may only really save a couple of lives a year. Does it make sense to spend billions to continue development of the drug, especially if it might have undesirable side effects? Maybe not.
I could go on. Scientific experiments in the natural and social sciences are valuable, and they often incrementally advance the field in which they are conducted, even if they are set up, conducted, or interpreted incorrectly. That’s a good thing.
But even when scientists get the explanation of the results right, it is often presented to us incorrectly, or our minds draw an incorrect conclusion. A part of that is that a looser interpretation is often more newsworthy. Another part is that our minds often want to relate new information to our own circumstances. And we often don’t understand statistics well enough to draw informed conclusions.
Let us remember that Mark Twain described three types of mendacity – lies, damned lies, and statistics. Make no mistake, that last one is the most insidious. And we fall for it all the time.