I don't see this getting traction, but I do like the thought.

...you?

www.economist.com/blogs/freeex...eceofyourfuture

Who would enforce this?

How much labor would it take to keep track of where the former student works and what happens if they change employers without notifying the University?

What if they self employ?

If the former student leaves the State could the University attach their wages Interstate?

What if they leave the Country?

What if they drop out of school?

What if they die?

What if they become disabled?

If schools stopped  forcing kids to take classes out of their core major the cost would drop like a ton of bricks.

And as Jake pointed out, there's a lot of blanks left to be filled in. What particularly concerns me is this: 

It also means, in many cases, that degrees that command a higher value in the labour market, like engineering or computer science, will cost more than other degrees, like theatre arts. But if an engineering degree is worth more shouldn’t it cost more?

We're hard pressed as it is to get kids into a lot of these programs (engineering especially) that do in fact have more value in the labor market; so charging more for them is only going to exacerbate the problem. Student loan debt is certainly a problem, but so is our labor force that isn't adequately trained to handle the realities of this new information age economy. We can't try to solve one problem at the expense of another.

I thought this might be an interesting and timely topic that doesn't revert into a 7-11 throwdown challenge...

I get all of Jakes concerns about admin, but, it does seem to address one gaping gap in today's system in that it forces the students and the colleges to address productivity on the backend without creating a new class of debt slaves for the sake of generating diploma's.

---------------------------------------------
--- GoldDawgs wrote:

And as Jake pointed out, there's a lot of blanks left to be filled in. What particularly concerns me is this: 

<span style="color: #000000;"><b><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">It also means, in many cases, that degrees that command a higher value in the labour market, like engineering or computer science, will cost more than other degrees, like theatre arts. But if an engineering degree is worth more shouldn’t it cost more?</span><strong> </strong></b></span>

We're hard pressed as it is to get kids into a lot of these programs (engineering especially) that do in fact have more value in the labor market; so charging more for them is only going to exacerbate the problem. Student loan debt is certainly a problem, but so is our labor force that isn't adequately trained to handle the realities of this new information age economy. We can't try to solve one problem at the expense of another.

---------------------------------------------

topic that doesn't revert into a 7-11 throwdown challenge...

LOL

I still like my idea of driving down "electives"

What exactly do art, philosophy, music appreciation etc have to do with engineering, sciences, business? And why the foreign language requirement?

They create well rounded individuals. At Reed, Steve Jobs took a calligraphy course. He later said it was one reason he made sure the Mac used fonts that were pleasing to the eye and easy to read. The Mac went on to become a preferred platform for publishers and graphic artists. I've used anecdotes I picked up in world history courses in business conversations about dealing with the competition.

If you strip the liberal arts out of the classic university education, you are generally left with a two year technical degree. Those programs are already available at places like Devry and ITT Tech. Nothing wrong with those degrees, they serve a purpose. But many employers prefer and will pay more for someone with a four year degree who received an education that is a bit more well rounded. Assuming for a moment the liberal arts component of my uni education cost $20k, there is no way I'd give up those classes, those experiences or the interactions with those professors for $20k in my pocket tomorrow.

---------------------------------------------
--- jzimmeht wrote:

<strong><span style="font-size: small;">topic that doesn't revert into a 7-11 throwdown challenge...</span></strong>

LOL

I still like my idea of driving down "electives"

What exactly do art, philosophy, music appreciation etc have to do with engineering, sciences, business? And why the foreign language requirement?

---------------------------------------------

LA Coug wrote: They create well rounded individuals. At Reed, Steve Jobs took a calligraphy course. He later said it was one reason he made sure the Mac used fonts that were pleasing to the eye and easy to read. The Mac went on to become a preferred platform for publishers and graphic artists. I've used anecdotes I picked up in world history courses in business conversations about dealing with the competition.

If you strip the liberal arts out of the classic university education, you are generally left with a two year technical degree. Those programs are already available at places like Devry and ITT Tech. Nothing wrong with those degrees, they serve a purpose. But many employers prefer and will pay more for someone with a four year degree who received an education that is a bit more well rounded. Assuming for a moment the liberal arts component of my uni education cost $20k, there is no way I'd give up those classes, those experiences or the interactions with those professors for $20k in my pocket tomorrow.

---------------------------------------------
--- jzimmeht wrote:

<strong><span style="font-size: small;">topic that doesn't revert into a 7-11 throwdown challenge...</span></strong>

LOL

I still like my idea of driving down "electives"

What exactly do art, philosophy, music appreciation etc have to do with engineering, sciences, business? And why the foreign language requirement?

---------------------------------------------

I don't buy the well rounded excuse. Ask yourself how much those electives shaped your life and if was in fact the electives or your life experience.  If the only rationale of electives is making someone more rounded is it the job of the Government to dictate our lives in that fashion? And at what cost? Another two years of out of control tuition, books etc? Respectfully disagree.

I place little value if one of my applicants holds a degree (I'm not in a technical field per se). I've known too many morons who possess degrees that dont have the cognitive skills to operate outside of a classroom setting. I would rather hire someone that has the skills to accomplish the mission.

I don't think you need to strip out the arts, for example.

Most schools have artistic and other programs add to a well rounded education.

If the student can justify it, and the college agrees, then write it into the agreement. If not, they are always free to pay out of pocket.

In the State of Washington, there is a 2 year foreign language requirement to be admitted. Universities can still provide higher level foreign language for the international business student, for example.

It seems like that should be easy to justify.

If the University believes granting a Swahili degree is worth their investment, they are still free to fund that as well. Addressing the marketability of said degree, may may give them pause or it might cause them to require a greater student out of pocket contribution.

Its not an excuse. Just a different perspective. The government doesn't dictate anything. No one is forced to go to college. If you don't want to take or pay for courses outside a very narrow technical frame, there are places that will allow you to do that. You can go to a junior college.

The cost of university isn't going up due to history and music classes. The cost of university is going up because professors in the technical subjects have to be well paid or they go to the private sector. Arizona just pilfered away my favorite MIS professor from WSU. He was making $250k+ a year at WSU. I'm sure Arizona is paying more. How many music and history professors do you think are getting paid $250k a year? There are other reasons university education is rapidly increasing, but I don't see how you can pin it on the music, arts and history departments. The professors in those departments are probably making the same wages they did ten years ago, while their colleagues in business, engineering and science have seen huge pay increases.

One of the electives I took in the fall of 1995 was telecommunications. (I was a business major) We learned how the telephone background worked. We also spent a month learning something many of us had never heard of, a text description language called HTML. I didn't waver on studying business, but my emphasis shifted from finance to information systems.

You may not place value on a degree, but the majority of employers hiring for high paying white collar work do use a degree as a means of separating the wheat from the chaff. It might be fair, it might not. But those are the breaks.

---------------------------------------------
--- jzimmeht wrote:


I don't buy the well rounded excuse. Ask yourself how much those electives shaped your life and if was in fact the electives or your life experience.  If the only rationale of electives is making someone more rounded is it the job of the Government to dictate our lives in that fashion? And at what cost? Another two years of out of control tuition, books etc? Respectfully disagree.

I place little value if one of my applicants holds a degree (I'm not in a technical field per se). I've known too many morons who possess degrees that dont have the cognitive skills to operate outside of a classroom setting. I would rather hire someone that has the skills to accomplish the mission.

---------------------------------------------

I understand nobody is forced to go to college, I'm not an imbecile. You make great points but I believe that the cost of higher education would be greatly reduced if you, as a business major, wasn't required to take SO MANY electives. The cost is greatly tied to the length of time you are in school. How about I counter with, if you want a more divergent education go for it and do it at a community college if you desire, but don't make a majority of electives a requirement to get a degree. 

I also understand that many employers use a degree as a basis, my point is that much of the degree requirements are unnecessary.

BTW, in California the governement dictates graduation requirements; units, core and electives.

---------------------------------------------
--- jzimmeht wrote:

I understand nobody is forced to go to college, I'm not an imbecile. ***Sorry, I didn't mean to imply such. :) ****You make great points but I believe that the cost of higher education would be greatly reduced if you, as a business major, wasn't required to take SO MANY electives. ***The electives are an incremental cost and one that isn't growing at all. The incremental/unit cost of technical degrees is growing rapidly. There are also several fixed costs that are growing rapidly; administration, fancier dorms, wireless connectivity on campus, fancy health clubs for the students, decreasing subsidies from the state. If you want to cut the cost of higher ed its those fixed costs you need to get after. The incremental cost of elective units probably isn't any higher than it was ten years ago. Thus, killing off the electives probably won't save you any money and doesn't address those fixed costs. **** The cost is greatly tied to the length of time you are in school. How about I counter with, if you want a more divergent education go for it and do it at a community college if you desire, but don't make a majority of electives a requirement to get a degree. 

I also understand that many employers use a degree as a basis, my point is that much of the degree requirements are unnecessary. ***And many employers disagree. ***

BTW, in California the governement dictates graduation requirements; units, core and electives. **Only for the UC and CS systems, no? They can't tell Stanford, Cal Tech or the dozens/hundreds? of private colleges what to do.***

---------------------------------------------

LA Coug wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- jzimmeht wrote:

I understand nobody is forced to go to college, I'm not an imbecile. ***Sorry, I didn't mean to imply such. :) ****You make great points but I believe that the cost of higher education would be greatly reduced if you, as a business major, wasn't required to take SO MANY electives. ***The electives are an incremental cost and one that isn't growing at all.


I can't argue that becasue I don't know. I'm off to L.A. for the next few days but I will ask one of my assistants who is always complaining about elective. I will get back to you on costs of core vs. electives per unit. And lets not foget the books.

The incremental/unit cost of technical degrees is growing rapidly.

Again, I will ask my assistant


There are also several fixed costs that are growing rapidly; administration, fancier dorms, wireless connectivity on campus, fancy health clubs for the students, decreasing subsidies from the state. If you want to cut the cost of higher ed its those fixed costs you need to get after.

I'm all for that. I have continually complained about the Taj Mahal approach to govt buildings. Always, at least here, built with marble flooring, over the top art work etc. As for the cost of adminitrators I think you probably recall me complaining about too much admin staff in the school systems k-12 and in higher education.

 The incremental cost of elective units probably isn't any higher than it was ten years ago. Thus, killing off the electives probably won't save you any money and doesn't address those fixed costs.

See above

The cost is greatly tied to the length of time you are in school. How about I counter with, if you want a more divergent education go for it and do it at a community college if you desire, but don't make a majority of electives a requirement to get a degree. 

I also understand that many employers use a degree as a basis, my point is that much of the degree requirements are unnecessary. ***And many employers disagree. ***

Thats a paradigm that "many" may want to recalibrate

BTW, in California the governement dictates graduation requirements; units, core and electives. **Only for the UC and CS systems, no? They can't tell Stanford, Cal Tech or the dozens/hundreds? of private colleges what to do.***

I'm not sure about this but there must be some uniform requirement established by some entity that determines graduation requirements for both pulic and private schools. I doubt that would be decided by the private sector. Regulation is a government institution, pun intended.

---------------------------------------------

Good debate, always a pleasure.

Articles such as this just draw folks attention away from what has really happened over the past few decades: States pay an ever decreasing amount of monies for post high school JCs and 4 year colleges.

Why?

They need to retain those funds for the ever increasing costs of government (at all levels) and teacher/administrator costs. This includes wages, current benefits and retirement benefits . . . PLUS . . . an ever increasing population of what are called 'administrators' in our school systems.

Student loans were hardly ever heard of back 3 or 4 decades ago when the states paid a larger portion of the associated costs of post high school education. As the share covered by government went down, the costs (tuition) went up.

Hence, maybe one should direct their attention (ire) at how things have gradually changed over the past 30 - 40 years.

---------------------------------------------
--- chinookpirate wrote:

I don't see this getting traction, but I do like the thought.

...you?

www.economist.com/blogs/freeex...eceofyourfuture

---------------------------------------------

+1 ZILLION

I always thought the value of a well-rounded education was not so much "what" you learned but your ability to learn. A real education should teach you the ability to conduct research, the ability to decimate and evaluate that same research, and the ability to grasp diverse complex ideas. Take Logic as an example, it teaches you to think. I was a construction management major but I took all of the art history classes. It was amazing what I learned in those classes about history, science, philosophy, and civilization. Higher education must always separate itself from what you can learn in a trade school.