I thought it might be useful to get some perspective on Noah Smith’s remarks about U. S. colleges and universities at Bloomberg:
In an unfettered market, spots at universities are rationed by price — those who pay, get to go. But in a world of price controls, the limited supply of college education has to be rationed by some other mechanism. That mechanism, inevitably, is grades and test scores. Lower-income students who do well in high school — such as me, once upon a time — will get a free ride to a brighter future, while those who don’t put up the requisite numbers will be left to the dubious mercy of the high-school-only job market.
To me, that doesn’t seem like a huge improvement. Yes, students who get better grades generally get more out of college, since they tend to have a stronger educational ethic and to be smarter in the first place. But in today’s polarized job market, a nerd-ocracy seems only slightly more desirable than a plutoocracy. We should figure out a way to deliver a brighter future to the kids who don’t quite get a top SAT score.
My recommended solution is to focus on increasing the number of college spots available. Those could be four-year university slots, or vocational education — a mix of both would probably be best. But the key is that supply should go up.
In the United States today there are about 4,000 degree-offering institutions of higher education. In Germany there are 70; in France there are roughly 200; in the United Kingdom there are 130.
Does it sound as though there are too few American institutions of higher learning?
I suspect what he really wants is more Harvards or MITs. Th skin dog schools where you are mostly guaranteed a good job when you graduate. Not happening. I guess you make some of the spots at those schools which currently go to rich and well connected kids go to kids who might merit it more, but even that is hard.
Steve
My mom used to say that you can make new friends but you can’t make old friends. You can make new schools but you can’t make old, established schools with cadres of wealthy, successful alums.
My own view is that education as a sector is fully mobilized to absorb any money we throw at it without producing any new results. If you want to make higher education better and less expensive, create a free, online degree-offering program. It can be an associates degree. It doesn’t have to be the best program in the country—just as good as the typical community college.
That takes more motivation, intelligence and self-discipline than most people have, especially at the age of 19. The kids likely to benefit from online stuff are the same ones going to the top two tier schools. I think it is also wrong to assume that people can just automatically change from conventional classroom learning to online learning. However, if you do want to try that, I would suggest starting it sooner, perhaps even in middle school. Better yet, maybe some hybrid as a transition. Online lectures. in person “lab” sessions with TAs like we do now.
This is much more viable for people in their 20s and 30s going back to retrain or gain new skills.
Steve
At least half of the people aren’t college material. Falsely believing otherwise is how you get to 4,000 colleges and people who won’t graduate burdening themselves with educational debt.
I think a hybrid is a fine idea. I’m a bit curious, however, about how much actual mentoring goes on at the community college level.
I ma not advocating or more colleges, just skeptical that most people can really learn well from online courses. I think most people really do learn better when you have a real live human being available to ask questions and interact with. Also, most kids don’t have that much internal discipline. Going to class with other kids is a kind of external discipline that works better for most of them.
Steve
I was amazed at the contrast in numbers of colleges here and in other places. I also think on line college credit is more conducive for older students who can only take courses that may cooperate more with a work schedule and/or family obligations. These people learn to become more disciplined because they have to, as their lives are not as rootless and flexible as younger “snowflakes” tend to be.
I agree with Smith that we are too focused on helping the exceptional low income students, and not focused enough on helping the rest of them. I don’t think more colleges is the answer though — at least not yet.
Most people won’t do well in college if they aren’t prepared to do well, and the time to affect that is younger. Lowering class size in grade school helps. Adding individual tutoring would help more — it’s expensive, and it needs to happen most in the school districts that can least afford it.
Adding more degree mills just makes it easier to require a degree for jobs that don’t really need a degree (people with a college degree have shown that they are responsible enough and follow through well enough to get a degree — excellent signal for employers, but they often don’t care about what you learned), which will just make it harder for those without degrees to get ahead.
Also, some classes in basic Adulting would be great. How to use credit cards, make a budget, etc.
I shouldn’t but will add my own college experience. It began as a H.S. Senior, called to the guidance councilor’s office, knowing nothing.
( He was also the high school football and wrestling coach) That’s when I was informed I had Just missed a four year Regent’s Scholarship, and I said, hands between my knees, “whats that?”
Well,he said, your scores are very high, especially in math, but, done now.
I was encouraged to enroll anyway, and did, at U N L, on loans.
Quickly learned my small town math skills were way behind classwork at U N L, so I searched for a guidance councilor but only found empty offices.
Big school, they got your money, they are done with you.
I expect they are all the same
I have heard that H R O’s use a degree to sort resumes, I guess that’s cool. But don’t blame me for resenting that and I’ll vote in another Trump if this one don’t work.