I taught college for about a dozen years (part time on the side), and may get dragged back into again soon.
I can say emphatically, the quality of the schooling only helps people who would succeed anyways. Those that won't or can't, no school can help them. There are just too many lazy, unmotivated or simple defeatist students out there. To not be too harsh, there are many students over their head in life (debts, relationship or mental issues, etc...), also which a school can do little to help with.
Nothing proved this to me more than seeing half the class not turn in the easiest assignments.
It was noticed that those who were in more higher education went on to achieve more success later in life (where success is often more income, but obviously many other things too). Over time some inferred causality from this: clearly the reason why some were successful was because they had a degree or even a masters or PhD. Thus in order to encourage success, it was decided that higher education should be strongly recommended as a means to achieve success.
But what was not considered was that the causality here could be incorrect, instead showing us that people with traits optimized for success in life chose to enroll in higher education to use the additional knowledge and experience as a catalyst for their success (or they just otherwise loved academia or learning).
Due to the extent of which this first hypothesis was treated as a fact, we are left with a system that attempts to reinforce it at many levels of society, ignoring the large cost that it takes.
The causality / endogeneity problems with estimating returns to schooling (due to unobserved individual "ability" variables) have been known to economists if not politicians) since since at least the 1960s, probably even earlier, see e.g. the intro of http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/causal_educ_earnings.pd...
Measuring the true returns of education is impossible, both on the individual level (we can't replay history with alternative choices) and the population level (clean randomisation on education is socially unacceptable), so all we have are approximations and methodological hacks (technical summary in linked summary paper). But such approximations typically found that "ability bias" was not all that large.
Right, but so are parental income and parental achievement.
And last I checked, there is a strong correlation between maternal educational achievement and child educational achievement even after controlling for various things including wealth. The correlation with paternal achievement when controlling for other factors is much lower.
As someone who spent a number of years doing free tutoring for CS classes (i.e. the kind where you can't choose who is coming in to see you), I strongly disagree with this.
Yes, there were students who started and ended the quarter hopelessly overwhelmed. But there were also students who through determination and hard work and lots and lots of help managed to dig themselves out of that hole. Many of those students would not have "succeeded anyways", they succeeded specifically because of the help they got.
If you mean to say that they succeed because of their willingness to ask for (and make use of) help, then sure. But your original comment makes it sound like you're tossing them into the same bucket as the students who never need to show up for help in the first place, which is absolutely unwarranted.
>"If you mean to say that they succeed because of their willingness to ask for (and make use of) help, then sure."
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. Success often requires asking for help.
Countless times I tried to help students that really didn't seem to care too much, they just wanted to get through the class. (it was required for the degree)
But I regretted splitting my time equally with people that just wanted to eek their way through, when they didn't even care, and didn't really need my help to pass, just to get a better grade.
Where as I wish I had devoted more effort/time towards students that really wanted to excel, even if their skills weren't great, or their talent was near non-existant.
The students that had a drive and need to learn, but still needed help, were the ones that succeeded.
Half the students were there for unknown reasons and would play games in class. Try and tell me how much I should care that they have run out of time to get their projects done at the last minute?
It's better for them to fail than to get shoe-horned into the next class because I helped them maintain their last minute freakout sessions. This did not help them succeed at school or life.
Debt - Schools could do better at financial assistance and in helping students better manage their finances.
Relationship/mental issues - Schools could provide or increase their access to counselors/therapists. Peer mental health support is also becoming an attractive option.
All of this being said, I'm not arguing that schools should help with these issues, rather just pointing out that there are solutions out there.
>Debt - Schools could do better at financial assistance and in helping students better manage their finances.
That's not what I meant, I mean there are students that spend all their "loans" on video games and entertainment instead of on living expenses and school, so no matter what the school does to help, the student will screw this up.
Can't blame the school for irresponsible students.
I have had a couple of homeless kids, yes friggin homeless kids, and one turned into rockstar. The only reason he could even attend was because the school made every student have a laptop (they provided, with full software and support)
There is money available to everyone, and there's only so much you can do to help people. Sometimes letting them fail instead of propping them up is what is actually good for them.
As like many other's here, I failed at the beginning, and learned a lot from that failure.
why should a college offer therapists? that is not their job. a college should have a medic for emergencies and for all other things the student can go to a doctor's office that specializes in their issue
And why is it a college's "job" to have a medic for emergencies? Isn't that what emergency rooms are for, along with ambulances?
It seems as if your opinion is that a college should have a baseline minimum for protecting students. Some think that minimum should encompass mental health, or financial education.
Are you being serious? Ambulances cannot arrive before in house medics. There are many cases where someone could have been saved if cpr or bandaging started before the ambulance arrived. I don't know of any case where someone was so suicidal that they needed to talk to someone (and wanted to) immediately or else they would commit suicide.
Psychiatry and financial education is not an emergency service that is needed immediately. That would be like offering cancer treatment at the university. If someone has cancer and they need treatment they should go to the hospital.
that would depend on the size of them. typically colleges have large campuses with lots of people "doing" stuff there. in apartments they are not so full in the middle of the day and during the night, not much happens. if however it was a big apartment complex with a doorman and elevator operator then they should have some medical person on call. in my synagogue we have a first aid kit and during large prayers there is someone who knows how to use it. that seems like a good idea
The role of a college has expanded far past just being a collection of faculty, dorms and classrooms. Modern universities and colleges are expected to provide an "experience" with accommodations on par with a fancy resort or spa. And eventually Pournelle's Iron Law takes over.
I had a financial counselor at my college suggest I a put the last semester on a credit card. Fuck that woman, she is terrible person for even suggesting that. I dropped out in my final semester and quite frankly it hasn't mattered. College is insanely expensive, and at the end of the day for some careers is a waste of time.
Life happens and honestly I didn't give a shit about finishing up at 36 years old. The shiny degree wouldn't have made a difference in my life. And after helping in the hiring process and reading countless resumes I don't even skim the education section. I am not going to be impressed by the diploma. I will be impressed by relevant factors related to working with you.
And seriously, trying to convince a college student to drop 30k on a credit card is awful.
30k USD per semester is on the high side. There are plenty of state schools that have in-state tuition that ends up being about 30k USD for all 4 years.
Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a state with a good one, however.
For public university tuition it is. $30k for a semester's tuition is very expensive for the sticker price for a private university (most students aren't paying the sticker price).
A semester at any old American university could be $30k, especially for out of state tuition.
It's pretty easy to get $30k+ credit limits, I have two cards with over $40k limits (I do points milling/never carry a balance). If I were to max my total credit limit on all cards and pay minimum payments it would take 86 years to pay off.
>A semester at any old American university could be $30k, especially for out of state tuition.
For public schools the average out of state tuition is about $10k.
The absolute highest is $23k. In state is much cheaper on average.
For private schools, $30k a semester is sticker price at an expensive school.
Very few college students can get limits that high.
> If I were to max my total credit limit on all cards and pay minimum payments it would take 86 years to pay off.
Most large credit cards charge accrued interest for the month plus 1% of balance (once your balance gets above a certain amount). It wouldn't take anywhere near 86 years for the majority of credit cards.
A 4-year degree at many American colleges can easily run to a quarter-mil. No I’m not kidding. That’s why it’s so incredible that people go there for anything other than employable degrees. What privilege level is a person on who can drop that kind of money just for fun? But there seem to be lots of them
That's sticker price at the most expensive private universities in the US. Even most of the students attending those universities aren't actually paying that.
Because I didn't want to add more any more debt. And quite frankly at the time I figured anyone I would would want to work for would not care...sure that piece of paper on the wall is cute but it's a meaningless trophy after a while. What have you actually done and how can operate in a team environment is more important
She isn’t a “terrible” person for suggesting it. It was the most logical thing for her to suggest knowing statistically the lifetime salary outcome for someone with a degree vs. no degree.
Her job is to give general advice that works for “90% of the people 90% of the time”.
That's far from obvious without knowing the specifics of the case; putting $25,000 of tuition on a credit card with a 24% APR, could get mighty expensive.
A student might be better advised to take a leave of absence, or finish up their degree part-time, or transfer to a less expensive or in-state school.
A lot of debate about education forgets that roughly half of public university students wash out. Graduation is a real accomplishment that sets you apart from many others who had the same opportunity and access.
To clarify the above: only 54.8% graduate in 6 years. Not 4 years... 6 years, meaning more debt. And that assumes they graduate, as opposed to just giving up.
That doesn't necessarily mean more debt. It normally means they aren't taking a full load. Most schools charge by credit hour now until you go above 15, so the extra debt is mostly just 2 years extra interest.
There are just too many lazy, unmotivated or simple defeatist students out there.
That was me for a long time (I even dropped out once), until I took a course from a teacher that actually inspired me in a subject I found fascinating. Next thing you know I had a Masters degree in math.
Some of my students were inspired in my classes and have good jobs in the industry. They were looking for something, and I had something to offer. I suspect your experience wasn't too different.
Unfortunately, most students don't find what you found...
Since the discussion is about higher education in general, perspective from eastern culture..
Higher education most often helps poor students or students of limited means and without any family connections to land coveted jobs, which is life changing not only for them but for their family. Education (and to some degree small time entrepreneurship) is the only way for them to come out of their circumstances that were not of their choosing.
> Those that won't or can't, no school can help them.
Isn't that the complete opposite to what teaching is about?
Have you considered that maybe this isn't a problem with the students but a problem with society and the very problem with the education institutions and teachers like you that are just basically feeding on them?
It's far easier (and economically viable in a shortsighted way) to blame students for their shortcomings than to make the effort to help them. I hope you are not thinking that you're doing society a favour by failing them instead of making the effort to figure out what their strengths are and/or if the way your teach, or what your employer preaches, may actually terrible.
Maybe you shouldn't go back to teaching the next time you get "dragged back into" it.
I don't agree 100% with the OP, but there are some students that are indeed just net negatives on the class and in general.
My state used to pay 100% of your state college tuition if you maintained a 3.0 GPA. A lot of students in my freshman dorm stayed until the 30 hour re-evaluation period and then disappeared forever. They partied, never went to class, never studied, and withdrew from most of their classes. They'd regularly fall asleep in or oversleep for 11:00 classes.
As a teacher, how do you handle these students? Many of them have not been raised to be on their own, and college is the first time they're let "off the leash". They're unprepared to be independent adults.
Additionally some students fail the same class over and over, then keep retaking the class with no improvement. They keep asking the same questions, slow down the class, and make it more difficult for everyone else to learn.
As a teacher how do you handle these students? Maybe you've already failed them twice. Maybe you've had extensive study groups, office hours, extra credit materials for these people, but they continue to do poorly. Some of them you suspect have learning disabilities or other mental problems that may always interfere with their ability to take your class.
(Later the state college system changed it to 80% tuition for 3.5 GPA, and at least my college mandated a maximum of 5 withdrawls, which cut down on the problem some.)
> Today, the ones who get most benefit from the social system act indifferent to the soceity need and refuse to contribute.
Look at the Panama Papers and all of the off shore banks, the Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich, etc. As a percentage of income per individual, these are the the folks that benefit the most and contribute the least to society by several orders of magnitude. Subsidies, bailouts, elaborate tax evasion schemes, government guaranteed student loans. This is the real "welfare state". People on food stamps don't even scratch the surface in comparison.
I absolutely did not classify all rich people. I specifically called out the extra wealthy that go out of their way to avoid taxes via loopholes or accounting tricks. Do you think Apple's billions of dollars in avoided tax is the same as someone shitting on the BART escalator? Do you think it's the same as McDonald's Corp not paying a living wage and as a result its employees being poor enough to need food stamps? (Which means tax payers are effectively subsiding McDonald's.)
Of course nobody wants to pay more taxes then they have to pay. I'm not talking about paying extra taxes because you're nice. I'm saying per individual, those that actively avoid taxes by "technically being an Irish company which is actually a shell company and a bank in the Cayman Islands", those people that make immense amounts of money and pay next to no tax on it, per individual they contribute the least to our society. And they use their immense wealth to keep the system that way. And they rarely suffer any meaningful consequences for any of their actions.
Just because a CPA can do it for $300 doesn't change that.
> Today, the ones who get most benefit from the social system act indifferent to the soceity's need and refuse to contribute.
The ones that benefit the most from the welfare state are the ones that (theoretically) pay the most for it: the wealthy. Imagine if Gates/Jobs/Page/Bezos et al had to invest in 18 years of education and healthcare for every potential hire? They'd never get the employees they needed to strike gold.
Those who benefit most from the welfare state are probably the people who hit a rough patch in life and instead of ending up homeless and desperate get a chance to recover back to contributing meaningfully to society.
The humanities are a day care and delayed adulthood for those who would be better suited doing anything else with their time aside from one or two students in every classroom of ~40.
For context, I left to work in the private sector with people who give a damn.
>"Isn't that the complete opposite to what teaching is about?"
No, it's not. Higher education is not adult daycare. If I have half a class screwing off and playing video games _in class_, and the other half desperately trying to improve their lives.
I used a very strict grading policy, if you don't turn in your assignment, you get a zero, period. All it takes is 41% of not turning in your assignments and your class doesn't apply to your degree. (ie, failure by default)
Are you suggesting I commit fraud to let these students pass? I did not "fail" them, they failed themselves.
Edit: Fyi, 100% of all my students that failed did so by not turning in assignments. 100% of them.
I've found the same to be true for mentoring junior programmers. Those who treat it as just a job rarely advance their abilities. Those who are genuinely interested in learning grew.
I've always disliked the verb "teach" because it implies that it is something I can do to you, when really all I can do is nurture, facilitate or provide a framework for you to learn.
I’m not a junior developer. By the time I started my first job, I had already been a hobbyist for ten years - since 6th grade and had a degree.
By the time I started working, it was “just a job” and 20 years later, it still is. I study and “do well”, because I am highly motivated to stay employed and stay employable at market rates.
> Isn't that the complete opposite to what teaching is about?
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
I taught EFL at a high school for 5 years. Being a good teacher takes a lot of experience, inspiration and hard work. It is a very, very difficult job. When I was doing it, I often thought how much easier it is to explain things to a computer compared to a person -- especially when the person is often doing everything they can to avoid listening to you ;-)
I don't want to diminish the role of a teacher because there is a huge difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher. It's just that there comes a point where you have to realise that the best you can do is to create an environment where it is possible for the students to learn. Everything else is up to the student.
The OP's point is very correct that of students who succeed, the vast majority would have succeeded even without the teacher. In those cases, the teacher may create a more pleasant environment, or may provide a convenient filtering of information. But there are very few disciplines where a good text book and a place to practice aren't enough. Where foreign languages are concerned, you don't even need the text book!
I fairly quickly realised that my "value add" in the classroom was to help those people who were borderline. There are always some people who are eager to work, but are constantly at a loss about how to start. In my experience, this is a very small percentage of the class (maybe only 10%), but you can make a big difference as a teacher to these students.
The real problem is where the teacher is placed in an environment where they are unable to concentrate on those students. For example, I often had classes of 42 students. For a language class, that's horrible. I can actually manage with 20, but if you get up over 30, it becomes impossible to spend enough time with the people who need it.
Of course, just like high school (which is filled with students who don't want to be there), undergraduate courses have massive numbers of students who are hopelessly uninterested in studying. There was a time when "university" was aimed at a very small number of very keen students. You had lectures with less than 10 other students and had tutors who helped you work your way through the ridiculously large amount of material that you had to learn. But such organisations are never going to fund a proper football programme, and what is the poor NFL going to do to train their players? ;-)
I mean your point is completely fair: society should take its share of the blame. However, consider who makes up society? The very people who think it is completely reasonable to drift from high school to university, take a bunch of random courses, and party every day. These same people whose career plans are to take their gold stamp for having sat through 4 years of boring lectures and exchange it for a "good job" (TM), which will bring them a very high salary but will have completely unspecified content.
Although, contrary to my rant, one of the things I really like about code boot camps is that it allows people to "wake up" from their delusion. After getting a general degree in "business" with specialisation in making unnecessarily complicated Excel spreadsheets, and working as a drone in the financial industry for 2 years, suddenly some people think, "OMG! Programming is amazing. What the heck have I been doing with my life?". Some of the best people I've worked with recently have come a similar route.
So it would be extremely great if we could help society get over this expectation of mediocrity and start making universities that are centres of higher learning. However, a teacher in a classroom is up to their ears wrestling with extremely unfortunate social dynamics and doesn't have very much time to change the world.
> Have you considered that maybe this isn't a problem with the students but a problem with society and the very problem with the education institutions and teachers like you that are just basically feeding on them?
I've lots of experience in teaching mathematics to students of all age. I believe how well you can be taught exclusively depends on your genetics and the environment you are brought up in.
Not everyone can succeed, not even majority of them can succeed.
You can simply filter students at the lowest level to manipulate the propotion of students who are succeeding.
Since then I've stopped teaching and went to start my own business.
If you really want to help them, leave them to fend for themselves and let the evolution make them fit for survival.
Anything done to screw with the nature will bite you back.
Where did you teach? I ask because I'm curious if that perspective is accurate at all types of post-secondary institutions, or if there is a difference between for-profits, private schools, community colleges, state schools, Ivy League, etc.
I taught at a community college. It's likely the percentage of people I have run into (I am still on the advisory board) is quite different than the universities. Or it's possible it's this area or a combination of both.
But my experience is anecdotal, and maybe the industry attracts video game players (my assumption) and this makes it more difficult demographic for success. The welders in the school seem to do great and generally succeed from what I have learned from the other departments.
> Those that won't or can't, no school can help them
Rich can have unmotivated kid and poor can have motivated kids and vice-versa.
Those who can't succeed, schools can still accept fees from them and create a larger pool of resources which those who 'can do' can leverage at expense of those who can't.
Wether it's good or bad - it's for the society to decide.
This is exactly what I ran into. And I was really happy for the highly motivated poor kids to get the opportunities in the school. Some of the few bright moments in my life is seeing students work hard and succeed.
I can say emphatically, the quality of the schooling only helps people who would succeed anyways. Those that won't or can't, no school can help them. There are just too many lazy, unmotivated or simple defeatist students out there. To not be too harsh, there are many students over their head in life (debts, relationship or mental issues, etc...), also which a school can do little to help with.
Nothing proved this to me more than seeing half the class not turn in the easiest assignments.