The vast majority of the classes I took were taught by GTFs (Graduate Teaching Fellows -- graduate students) rather than any kind of professor, adjunct professor, associate professor, or teacher. They followed a strict curriculum and "deep conversations" were a very rare occurrence. I was actually only taught by a full professor in 2 classes. The majority of the classes I took were required general education fulfillers, again taught by graduate students, and not subjects I was interested in (read: homework grind). There were tons and tons of facilities, athletics, teams, etc. I participated in a lot of teams and loved them, but I probably only took part in 1% of what the college as a whole offered. At the college I went, the average professor makes $91,000 a year. The average administrator salary was $286,000.
I agree with Dan that college provides enormous value, but It also comes with enormous waste. When people talk about the outrageous cost of higher education, it is because so little of the tuition money goes towards the actual education, and the few activities a student participates in, and a huge amount goes towards giant administrative fees, unnecessary facility fees, research employees who do not benefit undergraduate students, etc. Is college extremely valuable? Of course. Is the already high and increasing price justified? I don't think so at all. Are MOOCs the answer? Not with the experience and engagement level they currently have. I see college as not worth the cost due to problems of bureaucracy and financial models. MOOCs have a much better model of precision education -- you get to learn what you want to learn, and don't have to support the stuff you don't use. Though they are certainly grappling with huge problems of engagement, and the experience is terribly incomplete due to the lack of physical peers and extra-curricular activities.
I'm also temped to make a generic joke about the value of that liberal arts degree after college and how it's related to the kind of teaching you got.
...Wondering if this is actually true or just something you can say because it seems right enough. Have you done any actual research into this?
http://www.baconsrebellion.com/articles/2012/06/uva_bureaucr...
Instruction is less than 15% of the budget.
College continues to provide good value to anyone who anyone who is careful selecting a school and major.
""" Return from Attending College: The main financial benefit of attending college is the gain in income received by a college graduate over a high school graduate. However, by choosing to attend college, one is giving up 4-6 years of income one could have received if one went straight to work after high school. Therefore, we calculate the gain in median pay over a high school graduate (Earnings Differential) as the difference between the 30 Year Median Pay for a 2012 Bachelor's Graduate and Weighted 34-36 Year Median Pay for a High School. """
Unfortunately, they fail to take into account that the people who go to college probably would have been more successful anyway.
And they pay me more afterwards? Win-win!
Unfortunately, they fail to take into account that the people who go to college probably would have been more successful anyway.
That said, he is in a very interesting position to explore both sides of the question. It's not too hard to project out into the future and believe university education could finally change in your lifetime. But the people who are in the trenches actually gathering data have the most to say right now.
I don't know that I'd call it a strawman myself, but I like Ariely's writing so I'm biased. It's certainly not quite the same issue as the one being debated currently.
That selective reporting could make a casual reader think his assessment is being offered against-financial-interest. "Pay for college, not the MOOCs like I've taught!"
But quite to the contrary, suggesting people spend $61K/year on a prestigious university is strongly aligned with Ariely's unmentioned (although easy to find and well-known) professional affiliations and paychecks.
I don't think this disqualifies his analysis – he's got obvious expertise as both as a MOOC teacher and part of the university system, and I've enjoyed his writing and research. But it's definitely relevant, when it's left out of the story/headline. When delivering a pro-high-tuition-college message, in addition to whatever other insight he brings, he's also a pitchman for the institutions that employ him.
Or for comparison, if someone reported, "popular author reports that Apple iOS devices are definitely worth the price premium", wouldn't the fact that the author also worked for Apple be a relevant thing to know?
The essential cost of a college education is not very high. However, increasing the price of the degree can also increase the perceived value of it, since what people really want (they won't say it, it's not socially acceptable) is access to a higher social class.
Imagine you're going on vacation for four years. How much would that cost? Right, if you compare that to college, you would say college really is quite cheap. Now, it's an educated vacation; you get lots of things, but the amount of stuff that you're getting is really quite incredible, so the experience is amazing. I don't think it's expensive for what you're getting.
I'm sure you think the high prices on textbooks and medicine are well deserved too?
I wish I could get 4% of all my visitors to convert!
We can't put too much emphasis on completion rates as a metric for evaluating online courses. After all, the cost of entry (in terms of time and energy as well as money) is usually significantly lower than that of registering for an in-person college course.
For as long as this is the case, online courses will have a significantly lower completion rate. I'm not saying they don't have other serious problems — only that completion rates shouldn't be at the forefront of our criticism.
Investment in going to college: 12-14 years of school getting good grades along the way, SATs and then $20,000-$70,000 a year.
Investment in a MOOC: one button click.
Pretending that college-grad income levels compared to non-grads is a meaningful measurement (obviously a number of factors goes into ones income, most of them psychological) - over the last 20 years - what has happened to the ratio of college expense to increased income over a lifetime. That trend line is one important measure of opportunity. So in this regard the student of 20 years ago was better off.
The costs have skyrocketed in the US in a truly immoral way. Combine that with the current practice of mortgaging your entire future with ridiculous loan amounts, it is an absolute disgrace.
I do think that he tends to idealize and romanticize the "traditional" 4-year US college experience, which he did not himself have.
Learning to weld is more valuable than college for many people.
The most valuable thing I did in college was work on my own projects and work an internship.
I had my degree delivered to my parents house. It's in a drawer somewhere for their sentimental value. It represents lost years of my life.
I guess it is easier to convince young people today to go into heavy debt for a degree that has little worth. At least it is easier than convincing them to die for nothing.