• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

Just Don’t Go, the Sequel?

November 1, 2011, 10:27 am

I regularly teach a graduate seminar on academic labor, but I’ve always hesitated to teach William Pannapacker’s, aka “Thomas H. Benton’s” inflammatory—and now classic Chronicle article—“Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don’t Go” (January 30, 2009). I always felt that its compelling combination of cold logic and cynicism would depress my graduate students beyond recovery. But a Ph.D. student recently did a presentation on it in my current seminar, working up the courage to look into the abyss. The class seemed to take it in stride, but it led me to wonder about an even bleaker piece of advice: “College: Just Don’t Go?” I’m willing to include a question mark because the scenario I’m about to relate has yet to unfold completely, so I’m not willing to venture as certain a set of answers as Pannapacker did about graduate school nearly three years ago.

Graduate school aside, I believe one now has to wonder if going to college is a sensible decision. Such a suggestion would have been unthinkable as recently as five years ago, perhaps, but the combination of two factors—soaring tuition costs and what seems to be a permanently stagnant economy (or at the very least, yet another jobless recovery from a recession), have made me seriously consider whether going to college is now a good choice. So, with a nod to Professor Pannapacker, let me make my case.

First, the economy and consequent employment outlook for college graduates. The national unemployment rate is officially 9.2 percent, but everyone knows that’s an artificially low number. The Web site, The Economic Populist cites a variety of much higher figures, the most alarming of which is the following: The July 2011 unemployment rate for those officially unemployed, part-timers who seek full-time work, and all of the people not counted who report they want a job stands at 18.1 percent.
That’s a staggering number. What if we limit our search to college graduates in the last two years? A much harder challenge: an unknown number of college graduates have opted to go to graduate school in order to ride out the current economic hard times. The number of college graduates working part time (but who wish to work full time) and the number who have given up on the search for a job is also impossible to calculate. Thus while the Web site My Budget 360 reports that unemployment for those with college and graduate degrees has soared to an all-time high of nearly 5%, that number is very likely a low estimate too. These add up to one thing: The axiom that a college degree will guarantee you a solid career, an entry point into the middle class, and double the income of anyone without a degree simply no longer holds true. The same Web site makes my point more articulately: “Clearly the current economic recession has much to do with it but also, the fact that those with college degrees are losing jobs in large numbers as well. Many are no longer able to service their own debt. As we have mentioned, a college degree does not protect your job nor does it assure you in getting one.”
This brings me to my second point, the massive increase in student debt, triggered in a large part by the fact that college tuition continues to rise at a rate much higher than the cost of living. According to CNN, here are the grim statistics (bear in mind that the unemployment numbers for college grads tend to vary because they are so difficult to calculate): College seniors who graduated last year owed an average of $24,000 in student-loan debt, up 6% from the year before, according to a report from the Project on Student Debt. That data is based on an annual analysis of student-loan debt at more than 1,000 public and private nonprofit four-year institutions. At the same time, unemployment for recent college graduates (according to this site) jumped from 5.8% in 2008 to 8.7% in 2009—the highest annual rate on record.

So here’s my somewhat obvious question: Is it worthwhile for high-school graduates to go to college right now? My provisional answer, and I’d really like to be persuaded otherwise is “no.” The Republican Party and President Obama are clearly, as we’ve learned in the last weeks, at loggerheads over student-loan reform, so it’s unlikely to happen. Obama argues that students are being crushed by education-related debt; Republicans argue that tightening student-loan regulations and making it easier (and ultimately less punitive) for students to borrow will only serve as an incentive for colleges to increase tuition even more. Both positions are supportable, but as for high-school graduates right now, I think college is a bad bet. The exceptions:  highly practical occupation-related fields and quick and cheap two-year credentials, or, of course, independently wealthy parents or some other guaranteed lifetime-income stream. Otherwise, to start your life with a massive amount of debt (on which one cannot default) and a good chance that you won’t find a full-time job, let alone a secure one with career potential, just doesn’t make sense.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • trentsands

    The question isn’t whether a college degree is worthwhile.  The question is whether a college degree is worthwhile compared to what?  Although the current job market may not be good for college graduates, all the numbers I’ve seen for high school graduates are even worse.  What’s more, college graduates have managed to keep their jobs in this economic downturn at a higher rate than high school graduates.

    I do think high school graduates should explore a variety of pre-professional/post-secondary paths. I also think increasing numbers of ethnic/racial/class minority students seeking post-secondary education need effective counseling to direct them toward schools/educations that actually have economic value (and not just in the sense of the “job” a particular major leads but getting these minorities directed toward institutions whose graduates actually get jobs). All this requires that we re-evaluate our educational institutions and youths’ paths to these institutions. But I don’t think simply having a high school diploma is currently cutting it, nor will it be sufficient in the future.

  • http://twitter.com/kaifhung kai hung

    College, as with many other types of investment in one’s future, requires close examination and analysis for each individual to reach the right conclusion. It is no doubt just as wrong to say that “all should go get a college degree” as it is to say that “none should go get a college degree.” That said, let’s look at it at a more general level, and let’s look at some data. 

    Concerning the first point, which is that:

    “The same Web site makes my point more articulately: “Clearly the current economic recession has much to do with it but also, the fact that those with college degrees are losing jobs in large numbers as well. Many are no longer able to service their own debt. As we have mentioned, a college degree does not protect your job nor does it assure you in getting one.” ”

    If we look at the data presented at the site, namely, the unlabeled line graph towards the end, we do see that unemployment rate for college degree holders has risen. However, this does not then support the conclusion (from the web site) that:

     ”We tend to think of this group as largely immune but in deep recessions like this one, a college degree no longer protects you from the fluctuations of the market. ”

    If we look at the data on the same table with the non-college degree holders, we will see that the unemployment rate over the same period rose much faster. So, having a college degree doesn’t immunize the degree-holder from market fluctuations, but it does soften the blow, like it normally does over the years. Furthermore, in the projection by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm) (Chart 7), we see 8% to 19% growth in jobs for college degree holders. Therefore, while the economic downturn is adversely affecting the jobs of college graduates, over all, college graduates are better able to withstand the storm and they have a higher chance of recovery. This is cold comfort to the thousands of currently unemployed or under-employed, no doubt. Still, if I have to place a bet, the odds are in favor of college degree holders. 

    Further, as with most discussions on “college degrees,” we’re conflating a wide range of fields in the discussion. Not all fields have equal earning potentials, or equal job market environment. For instance, according the projection by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (same linked as above), we see in  Table 1 that the fastest growing job sectors are heavily positioned in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) area (I guess this sort of harken back to Pannapacker’s point?). So whether a high school senior should consider college or not depends, in part, on what fields the student have aptitude for. 

    All in all, the job prospects for college graduates now certainly do not paint a rosy picture, but it is not as dire as some may make it out to be. This is a case of the grass being browner on the other side. 

    With regards to the second point, about rising amounts of student loan debt for recent graduates, that’ll take a whole another post to talk about. 

  • Geoz32

    If you are in it for the dollars, you should go. If you are in it for the transformational experience, you should go.  But if you don’t like to be better and make more money, then don’t go.

  • chguk

    I think this article is timely – we need to be figuring out what the cost/benefit of college is.

    The way I’m looking at it currently is that high school graduates who want to achieve great things might be well-served by trading down to an institution that can offer them an attractive merit aid package – this will have the additional benefit of making them a standout in their classes, and likely to attract faculty attention and support as a result. 

    Going into debt for an undergraduate degree is becoming a worse option every single day.

  • usaret

    I agree with those commenters who’ve pointed out that though a college degree is no guarantee against unemployment, a HS diploma is usually worse in terms of offering such protection. Better to have one than not.
    On the issue of student debt–I see a number of my community college students taking two years (or more) with us to complete their general education courses and then move on to a university to complete their degrees. if they transfer to a state university, their two years there may cost around $40K in total (if living on campus), with perhaps another $4-6K in community college tuition. And those who trasnfer to a public university nearby could conceivably live at home and save about a quarter ot a third of that $40K. So a degree does not have to leave the huge mountain of debt that so many of those who appear in the news seem to have. Or students could go to college like I did, on an ROTC scholarship, which only costs four years of service (with the possibility of going to war, etc…). In short, smart students can find ways to make college less expensive. It may not be their first choice school, but it may well offer as good (variously defined) an education.

  • goodeyes

    As far as employment, some degrees are much better than others.  The course this author teaches called “Academic Labor” seems like a waste of time and money.  Students in our College of Business seem to be doing very well because of their degree.   

  • pannapacker

    Thank you for mentioning my “Just Don’t Go” essay.  I’m curious what the student said in the presentation.  

  • philosophy

    Especially for those who want the transformational experience and don’t have a lot of money and don’t want obscenely high student loan debts: most states have relatively low-cost 4-year regional universities (as well as community colleges) that provide pretty darn good educational opportunities for students who choose their courses thoughtfully – despite the fact that such places don’t rate very high (or at all) on the foolish USNews & other college ranking sites. I know this because I’ve taught at one of them for 20+ years  :-)
     

  • gmanacheril

    The last paragraph in your article seems to suggest that children of low income (or no income) parents be pushed out of college and let those who can afford go for it. This class warfare is sure to take us centuries back to the Victorian England where the haves and the have mores will reign over the have nots, the traders, plumbers, carpenters and the likes. What a wonderful republican solution!

  • drphilthethrill

    As mentioned earlier, while times are tough and the rate of employment is low, the unemployment rate is much worse for those without college degrees. Obviously you shouldn’t shoot yourself in the foot by accruing a significant amount of debt. But if given the opportunity, I believe a college education provides more positives when you consider the experiences you gain and the people you meet. The networking college provides, gives a huge advantage for potential employment opportunities.

  • 22000394

    I teach computer science.  That is a very solid academic discipline in which students not only learn to think clearly but also usually learn to do things that are highly marketable.  At three jobs per graduate, there probably isn’t anything else students could study that would have the educational value plus the payback in the job market.

    Why, then, are enrollments in computer science down?  Why are students not beating down our doors?  They aren’t, and all we can think of is that they just aren’t willing to work hard enough, and they haven’t been willing to work hard for all the years before university when they didn’t learn the discipline and study habits that are necessary to succeed in the harder fields of endeavor.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kimber.palmer Kimber Palmer

    Personally, I would like to see high school graduates have some real world experience for a few years and then go to college. That way  they will appreciate and probably get more out of their education. So in that sense, only, do I agree with this author. College is so much more than dollars and cents. There are hundreds of  4 year lower-cost options where a student is not saddled with “massive amount of debt” this author fails to consider.

  • J_D_PineCoffin

    I drafted this letter when I was last asked to advise a would be graduate student:
    Dear future graduate student

  • J_D_PineCoffin

    I drafted this letter when I was last asked to advise a would be graduate student:
    Dear future graduate student

  • mseifter

    I wish I had this letter in front of me before I applied to garduate school.

    True wisdom.

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    I personally know unemployed MBA grads from NYU, BC, and Northwestern.

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    I went to a NESCAC liberal arts college (not Williams or Amherst, unfortunately) and Northeastern Law School.  The two worst mistakes of my life.  My humanities degree is irrelevant (much as Henry Adams claimed his humanities education at Harvard was irrelevant in the ‘modern’ 1850′s), and my law degree lacks a sufficient amount of prestige, as defined by USNWR, which dictates legal hiring to a staggering extent (this does not stop my law school from claiming 93% employment w/in six months of graduation @ nearly $100k median salary – the EXACT SAME NUMBERS AS BEFORE THE RECESSION).  Buried under more debt than I can probably repay in my lifetime, I find myself applying to retail and call-center jobs, because I have simply been sh*t out of the job market.  The same jobs I would be applying to as a debt-free high-school dropout.  Simply put, the irrelevance and/or perceived paucity of my education has destroyed my future.  Interest on my student loans will take the place of mortgage payments, retirement savings, childrearing, travel, consumer spending, and health care.  If I can find work, I will work until I am “too old,” which these days seems to be around 45 or so, and then I will slowly starve.  Welcome to the new indentured servitude.

    In my opinion, we have reentered the Gilded Age.  Go Ivy League, go vocational degree*, or don’t frigging go. The only difference is that the schools that opened during the Gilded Age to educate the poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free (Northeastern, for example) now cost as much as Harvard or Yale, but offer no meaningful financial aid and so in fact cost far in excess of the Ivy League schools.

    *By vocational, sadly, I mean business/finance/management/other such entirely nonacademic claptrap.  The nonsense that signals to corporations that they don’t need to spend ten cents or ten minutes training someone on Excel or Powerpoint the first day of work.  For all those who would say STEM!  STEM!  I would ask them to go to Boston or Silicon Valley, buy a drink in a few bars, and ask the bartenders what their education consisted of.  STEM!  Let us not forget H1B competition, employers’ heavy preference for such applicants, offshored R&D centers, unpaid internships, credential wars (the MS is the new BS, the postdoc is the new MS, etc) and all the rest of it.  Or the example of Great Britain, where STEM students have been increased over the last two decades.  The result?  A bunch of unemployed STEM grads instead of a bunch of unemployed classics majors.  Even if the US starts to create 10x more STEM majors, the HP’s and GE’s of the world will continue to prefer using 3rd world STEM grads who will work for 1/10th of the salary.

  • unemployedacademic

    If a person’s parents paid in the range of $30K / year for kindergarten, there’s really no downside to going to university, because that person is almost certainly from wealth and a member of the elite class.  The admissions tournament is the ticket to the show.

    If you want to be truly mercenary about the other 99%, China and India will need US grads for some time hence.  It will take them a while before their own systems ramp up enough to provide good educations for their massive populations.  You’ll need a college degree to overcome the hurdles that capital has thrown up to limit labor mobility.  I also doubt very much that either of those countries will hire anyone without a degree, perhaps not even without a post-graduate degree.

  • realtyannie

    J. D., regarding your quote: “The secret to graduate school, the one that very few who have ever been there
    will share with you, is that graduate school gives you nothing.”

    Why is this? The graduate school infuses the sense that failing to thrive as a TT professional is the final judgment of the student’s intellectual value. It’s not the school’s fault. It’s mine.

    From one who spent nearly 20 years regretting a fully-funded, 18-month MA program in the social sciences. Would have been crazy not to take the deal, right?

    What happened after 20 years? Two things: finally, an impressive enough work history on the resume (no, not a CV, don’t have one) to match the big White Elephant, the big “M” that suggested a brilliant prodigy who mysteriously underachieved foreverafter.

    That, and the Pannapacker article you mention above. Thanks again, Bill!! :)

  • realtyannie

    Compared to your sad story, my own is like a fairy tale come true. I did work at a call center, and it was a trick to get hired with the pedigree.  I am now 45 and will also work until I am too old, which is not now. It’s going to be as long as I am lucid enough to earn any kind of wage.  

    You are kind to share your story and warn others of their potential fate.  

  • tattletale_heart

    Enrollments in computer science are WAY up at my university this year.  Go figure.

  • 11165669

    Higher education has been “over sold” for the past 50 years as the way to get ahead in America.  The focus has been on getting a job rather than an education.  I tell my students that the skills they learn for a job while in college will be obsolete by the time they graduate and that half the jobs they will have in the future have not even been thought of yet.  You do not need a bachelors degree to sell clothes at a department store or be a plumber.  However it is in the best interest of all of us to have an educated population.  Maybe the decline of the United States over the past decades are because people think in terms of getting a credential to get a job rather than learn to think.  Education is a public good.

    As far as cost is concerned you can thank President Reagan.  It was under his administration that the bright idea of students taking out loans rather than receiving grants became policy.  At the same time states have decreased their subsidy.  The net effect is for colleges to have their faculty seek more research grants rather than teach in order to raise the money the college needs.  Since most colleges do not receive substantial research money the only other alternative is to raise tuition.  An unintended consequence of switching to loans is that many students take a ligher course load and find work in order to avoid taking out loans.  Many of our students take 12 credit hour loads per semester to qualify for financial aid but doing that increases the time to graduate and ultimately increases their debt.  I’ll stop there but the ripple effect carries on to marriage, home ownership, retirement planning.

    The bottom line is that many students in college probably never should have gone to college at all or at least delayed their going to college until they were ready to be educated.

  • dank48

    Is it worthwhile investing with Bernie Madoff?

  • csgirl

    Enrollments are going up. However, the students coming in are all flunking, because they don’t really want to work that hard.
    The reason enrollments nosedived about 10 years ago was because of all of the outsourcing. I have to ask the question – will the jobs *really* be there for the graduates, or are the companies just saying they need CS people so they can increase the number of H1b visas? That is something I wonder when I have my “cynical” hat on. 

  • sibyl

    This essay frames the question in a binary way — go, or don’t go? worthwhile, or not worthwhile? — while in my judgment the answer is on a sliding scale.  For many people, yes, it is worth incurring some nonzero amount of debt to complete a baccalaureate degree.  College provides skills and knowledge that tend to have a positive effect on happiness as well as income over time. 

    Sure, the job market is bad, and a late start will hamper today’s grads.  But staying out of college won’t create jobs.  And as trentsands says, high school graduates are even worse off in today’s job market.

    Young people should prepare themselves as best they can for the rest of their lives.  For most of them, that means college.  Yes, they should minimize the debt they incur to get there.  But I can’t say to someone that a good college isn’t worth $10,000 or $15,000 of debt.

  • mycantarella

    Gee, all those non college going minority students are doing just fine! I am sorry but this is an untenable position. The global economies that are thriving are the ones where education is a priority and they are importing our colleges! The innovation and knowledge that has been the driver of our economy is being starved by attitudes which devalue the impact of education on skills. We do not do a good job in the academy of explaining our own value and so let others more anti-intellectually inclined have at us. Would I support more experientialism in education– absolutely. But look at our leaders and the vast majority of those with economic security and high net worth have the education to back it up. I have gone on in this vein before in these pages and especially in a blog post http://www.facebook.com/l/cAQFDTUBI/icanfinishcollege.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/the-“is-college-worth-it”-debate—not-a-debate-worth-having/. Ironically, the question strikes me as an elitist one.

    Marcia Y. Cantarella, PhD Author, I CAN Finish College: The Overcome Any Obstacle and Get Your Degree Guide

  • nybound

    I concur. My sense is that students are increasingly considering the cost:benefit ratio when selecting colleges (driven by both the economy and the rate of increase in tuition prices). The elite colleges will be fine, and the good public schools will face budget cuts but will soldier on. The ones in real trouble are the not-quite-elite private schools that charge high tuitions. They have to convince students that the experience (education?) they offer (sell?) is worth an extra $40k+/year versus the good public schools. It’s becoming a more difficult task…

  • edwoof

    Here are the Real Just Don’t Go’s (with the exception being if you have access to sufficient resources that you do not have to be concerned about supporting yourself):

    1. Just don’t go to university and pursue a bachelor’s degree unless (1) you reasonably can emerge with less than $10,000 in debt, and (2) you major in business or engineering.

    2. Just don’t go to graduate school for other than a professional, terminal degree like an MBA unless you are fully funded, and even then do not pursue a graduate degree in the liberal arts unless you are in one of the top ten programs.

    3. Just don’t go to law school unless you are in one of the top twenty programs defined by the USNWR and even then, do not take on debt exceeding $30,000.

    The truth is, students can emerge with a BA with relatively little if any debt if they and their parents make some rational decisions. Ironically, there is also an article in the CHE concerning the trend of students attending state schools where they are not a resident. This is an expensive and irrational decision, especially if attending such a university increases their debt load. 

  • renellin

    Thank President Reagan? Since when do people take only loans and don’t get grants? They usually do both. Financial aid is in serious need of reform, but that is another forum. I feel the reason the debt is skyrocketing is in the last few decades, education has been touted as THE solution, with the entire population as a target, and those who choose another career path are often seen as inferior. There are many people who simply aren’t suited to higher education, and had enough trouble just getting through high school. They aren’t stupid either, but may enter the family business or start a contracting firm, or do any number of things to keep themselves busy and above water.
    Additionally, many going to college find the job market is incredibly specific about the qualifications required–a bachelor’s in anything is no longer feasible.

  • renellin

    Actually, I would like to see kids at the age of 13 given some testing opportunities–if you strive to go on to higher education on a faster track, prove you have the reading/writing/rithetic down and begin a more accelerated track, which I think many high school students are capable of. Those who don’t make the grade but still retain the interest can periodically retest. For the rest, let’s get acquainted with apprenticeships and alternate choices–all aimed at preparing the student for a successful career. Those who try and fail can go back and pick up. Partner with the local firms so that the skills are taught on site, and the student has a job waiting for him provided he is a producer.

  • renellin

    I think it’s the math. A lot of people take 4 semesters at a community college just to get to college level math. Not willing to work hard? That’s me. I can do the math, but I don’t really care for it. Too much like work? Perhaps. I would go with computer information systems, but it, like computer science at my college are only taught during the day, and I have a day job.

  • timurid

    “1. Just don’t go to university and pursue a bachelor’s degree unless (1)
    you reasonably can emerge with less than $10,000 in debt, and (2) you
    major in business or engineering.”

    So 100% of college students should train for positions that make up maybe 30% of the total college educated workforce (I’m adding all of STEM to your list, and I’m still being very generous).
    That’s sure to end well…

  • 22097984

    To add or follow up on 22000399 above I see the same problem.  The American educational system produces way too many graduates in non-technical fields and way too few graduates in the STEM areas.  Even in Business the students want to major in the “soft fields” of HR and management.  The real employment demand is in the quantitative ends of business such as statistically based marketing and mathematical finance.  I am not sure what the answer is, but even in this poor economy I see a mismatch between what my students major in and where the jobs are.

    This can be seen in the recent Time Magazine article on the OWS protests.  The magazine featured 5 heavily indebted recent college graduates at the protests.  All 5 were history/mulitmedia studies and the like.  Worthy and interesting topics all, but very, very little employment opportunity after graduation.  Seems foolish to borrow money to study something that can’t provide the income to pay back the loan.  Seems more foolish to expect me to want to pay taxes to subsidize their foolish thinking. 

  • bscmath78

    timurid, a recent Georgetown report claims all STEM jobs represent 4.4% of all jobs, as part of a report that I think is way too optimistic in terms of STEM projections as well as ignoring 40 years of STEM UNDERemployment. See my comments starting here: 
    http://chronicle.com/article/High-Demand-for-Science/129472/#comment-340057829

    The Georgetown report contains various stats that appear to show that at university and after, a substantial number decide the STEM life is not worth it. 

    Page 46 has a table showing of the “Top math quartile” students: 23% start with a STEM major, 15% continue and graduate in a STEM major and 8% continue and start to work in a STEM job.

    So I think edwoof was intending that a much smaller number go to university.

  • Prof_truthteller

    I agree. One could take this quote:  The axiom that a college degree will guarantee you a solid career, an entry point into the middle class, and double the income of anyone without a degree simply no longer holds true.  and replace “college degree” with ANYTHING and the statement would still be true. Fact is, there is NOTHING that will guarantee you any level of success. 

  • bscmath78

    22097984, despite claims of STEM shortages or bounty for STEM people, the situation is at best mediocre for probably 90%. There is in general a worldwide surplus of average STEM graduates.

    In the UK, the odds of a UK Science Ph.D. becoming a professor are worse than 200 to 1 according to the 2010 Royal Society report “The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity” at:

    http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294970126.pdf

    Figure 1.6 on page 14 shows 0.45% of Sciences Ph.D.s become professors (in the UK there is no tenure for university professors).  53% of Science Ph.D.s go for NON-science work right off the bat, maybe because they realize they should finally cut their losses.

    The chart with its arrows is somewhat unclear but it appears that the 30% arrow is postdocs,  3.5% is “Permanent Research Staff” (in academia)  and then 0.45% become professors. Note other arrows going to non-academic research. And just a reminder that “permanent” just means no guaranteed end date like a postdoc.  Also, the chart is based on 2005, 2008 and 2009 documents which, of course, are based on earlier, happier times.

    On the same page 14, the Royal Society states in the context of complaining about failures to recruit sufficient science and math school teachers:
     
    “The Royal Society’s own research suggests that without excellent teachers there is little hope of inspiring children to stick with science”

    No connection seems to be made between poor prospects, poor rewards and a search for better non-STEM alternatives.

    The Royal Society report makes no mention of the stats for Cambridge and Oxford Ph.D.s.  The story might well be different for Oxbridge Ph.Ds, which might mean the odds for the rest of Ph.Ds might be worse than 1,000 to 1.

    For some information on the poor situation for NIH funded researchers, search for “Average Age of NIH R01 Equivalent Principal Investigators” to find a NIH Office of Extramural Research presentation. Slide 5 has a chart illustrating the increase in age for first time R01 Equivalent Principal Investigators. For the Ph.D. case it increased from 37 in 1982 to over 42 in 2007.

    For more on why STEM should be considered high risk, please have a look at comments starting here:
    http://chronicle.com/article/High-Demand-for-Science/129472/#comment-340057829

    To get a sense of the challenges facing STEM women, have a look at manoflamancha’s comments, which I interpret as hostile, including:
    http://chronicle.com/article/Lack-of-Confidence-as/129528/#comment-345656949

    Please see the rest of his comments in that thread, as well as various responses to his views.  I have a variety of comments some responding to manoflamancha and some not, starting at:
    http://chronicle.com/article/Lack-of-Confidence-as/129528/#comment-346054219

    “If you are smart enough to earn a STEM Ph.D., you are smart enough NOT to!”

    Your odds are probably much better if you had your full tuition plus a generous stipend paid by the university, plus no teaching (so you could just do research), at one of the top 10 Ph.D. programs in the world, in your specific area, mentored by a top 50 in the world researcher. What are the odds of that?

  • Prof_truthteller

    People confound personal and anecdotal experience with aggregate data on the averages. For every tale of woe, such as Unemployed_Northeastern, there will be an equally compelling tale of success over odds. While useful and instructive on an individual and personal level, neither is really useful to informing the national debate. 

    Every personal decision carries an element of risk. I think people considering any major life decision right now are framing that decision against the national and global backdrop of extreme uncertainty, unpredictability, and irrationality we see displayed everywhere, combined with the starkly reduced level of personal power and control and choice over one’s own life. So, when you can’t really guess what might happen- and you can’t DO much about it anyway-  what direction do you follow?

  • bscmath78

    Many of Unemployed_Northeastern’s earlier posts are very well worth reading to understand the problems/risks with law school and with the vast majority of colleges.  Except the current “Go Ivy League” is NOT sufficient.  Brown and Cornell don’t cut it for the top employers. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Standford and a few others make the grade but you also need to be clubbable. And probably you also need to be attractive though it isn’t mentioned in this CHE article (though it might be implied by being clubbable):
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/brown-and-cornell-are-second-tier/27565

    Even if you get into one of the top paying jobs the way they operate is that 80% will be gone in 5 years or less. They operate on the “up or out” principle.

    For the STEM student, If you can start your own successful business you might have some success or enormous success, but life and death on Route 128 and the Silicon Valley is fairly brutal and high risk with high start-up failure rates and decline and fall of established corporations. Consider Route 128 (Boston). What happened to Wang? DEC? Data General? decline and take-over with STEM layoffs along the way. Most of the high-tech start-ups in recent years had key early players from Stanford, Berkeley or MIT.

    For the bottom 90% of STEM students the world-wide STEM surplus and world-wide competition is an increasing problem. The “war for talent” only really exists for the top 1% world-wide.

  • renellin

    Now Obama’s specialty is class warfare, and last I checked he is not a republican. Why get snarky? To a large degree, college is for who can pay for it. Making grants and loans available does not change this. All we have done by offering student loans (aren’t interest rates for them doubling next year?) is make the dream seem possible until one graduates, goes out in the job market, and gets disappointed.(not always of course) Rich students can pay regardless of whether they graduate or not, and usually have a job all arranged for them before they even enter. Struggling students still struggle. Many fall out, many make good. It’s not as much about the money as what you can make of yourself. The article is trying to make a point that in this climate, college might not be a wise investment long term.
    Incidentally my brother-in-law is a plumber and he makes very good money.

  • ellenhunt

    Curious, don’t you think, how many STEM PhDs the UK hires from outside the UK?  This is curious indeed given the supposed oversupply.

    What I have heard through the grapevine in the UK is that the quality of the vast majority of those obtaining STEM PhDs there is outlandishly  awful. I have been told that this is due to a university system which makes it virtually impossible for a professor to fail or otherwise get rid of a grad student. Consequently, professors move trouble out the door the only way that they can. To do otherwise is just too much trouble and could likely result in being fired.

    I have heard stories of PhDs in science unable to handle exponents and similar deficits that should get them a failing grade as a freshman undergrad.

    I will renew my call for testing standards and post-graduate oral and written exams for all university students. Worldwide, the possession of a degree is meaning less and less. Nobody knows anymore if a student has even basic skills – not even if they have a PhD.

  • ellenhunt

    I have a quibble. Not all nations with education as a priority are thriving. They also must have government policies that at least encourage creation of jobs that need college graduates. See Egypt and Tunisia.

  • bscmath78

    Prof_truthteller, but when a Royal Society report shows the odds are worse than 200 to 1 against a UK Sciences Ph.D. becoming a professor, it is sensible to treat this as a high risk adventure which requires much more talent, time and work than going to the race track.  See the URL for the Royal Society report in an earlier post.  That’s a basis for “informing the national debate.”   The paper referenced in the CHE article “Cornell and Brown are Second Tier” is another basis for debate. 

    Unemployed_Northeastern’s tale might be only true for 50-90% of students.  The tale of lasting success might be true for 1-5%.  Unemployed_Northeastern’s tale is much more useful for students who have been deluged with the 1% dream for years.  Guess what, the odds are that for those who aren’t in top 10% families, less than 1% of them will make it into the top 1%.  Even for those in the top 10% there isn’t much room in the top 1%.

    To fail to make it clear that the odds are against you, that you will need talent, hard work and lots of luck (all of which has been true since at least the Dot Com bust) seems quite misleading.  Should you ignore the screams of anguish from the slaughter house, as the goat at the entrance calmly eats its fodder and smiles contentedly at you?

    You wrote, “and you can’t DO much about it anyway-  what direction do you follow?”
    Easy, don’t follow the the lemmings over the cliff unless you have a glider, parachute or some other advantage over the rest of them. BTW, lemmings aren’t actually stupid enough to rush in great hordes over a cliff.

  • ellenhunt

    Oh, for god’s sake!  Hang out a shingle as a family law attorney and do your damnedest to be the best family law attorney ever!

    There is ALWAYS work in family law. Quit whining. You can’t be forced to pay on your student loan debt in a way that will seriously crimp your lifestyle!

    Have some gumption.

  • ellenhunt

    I used to know one of those from Harvard.

    Then he figured out it really was up to him, and his credential was just a ticket in the door. He got it together and did very well after some tough years. In short, he actually APPLIED what he was supposed to have learned in school. It was quite a revolution in his mind when he “got” that. He had been in school so long he assumed that when he got out, it would be more of the same.

    Imagine that! Applying what you learn instead of learning to apply.

  • karld
  • anahuacbob

    It might be time for “career counselors” or “guidance counselors” employed by school districts to skip the “what do you love” garbage and start discussing strategy.  A year to work in fast food or picking apples.  Two years of community college.  A couple years off working at a big box.  Back to school.  Maybe even discussing what the salaries are of people that attend trade schools: plumbers, diesel mechanics, electricians, etc.  No, those are not “recession proof” jobs, but neither are jobs that the college grads are getting – ask all those folks in IT or financial services that have gotten the sack.

  • ellenhunt

    Yes. I regularly have told students that they have to understand that they are in college to actually learn something, not just get a good grade. Few employers pay attention to grades. But all employers pay attention to job performance. And if you end up being one of those many who work for themselves, nothing matters but how well you really learned, and how well you continue to learn.

  • superdude

    Given the fact that the statistics are on the side of the college graduate, I’ll encourage my 12 year old to go to college.

    Will college guarantee success?  Of course not.  Will is *DRAMATICALLY* increase the odds of success?  Yep.  On average, college grads, even today, are more likely to be employed, and more likely to earn substantially more than those without a college degree.

    Of course, the issue isn’t as binary as presented, either.  There are more useful degrees and less useful degrees.  Here are some hints: don’t major in something that you could pursue as a hobby; don’t major in something that ends in “studies”; and avoid the social sciences and humanities (and this speaking as a social scientist!).

    Finally, there is a perverse situation here: as more people decide college is not “worth it”, those who do go to college will gain additional relative advantages.  The more people who choose to remain in a lower socio-economic status, those who are high SES will have an even greater edge.

    If I were evil, I’d be out there encouraging more people to avoid going to college, simply so that my son, who will go, has a larger advantage when he graduates.

  • ellenhunt

    See my other comment about how many out-of-country doctorates are hired in the UK in STEM. There are very serious problems in Britain’s higher educational system.

    I worked in industry from 1980 into the 1990′s. I know exactly how it was. And even in the dot-com years (all 2.5 of them) it took a lot of luck for lightning to strike. For employees with stock, the average take was $8,000. The median was around $1000.

    One of the problems with this generation of university students is that they have absorbed a ridiculous narrative of history and of how they think things are supposed to be.

    Yes, college students will need to work very hard, and most will manage to do just “alright” for all their hard work. A rare few will be struck by lightning and attain riches. That’s life.

  • bscmath78

    ellenhunt, actually, I had been wondering why the Royal Society chart didn’t show UK Ph.D.s leaving the UK, as well as the various flows inward, especially given the EU.  The “New Scientist” magazine always left me with the impression of lots of graduates interested in leaving the UK.

    You wrote, “What I have heard through the grapevine in the UK is that the quality of the vast majority of those obtaining STEM PhDs there is outlandishly  awful.” 

    The problem is that my impression is that has been true in the US of all Ph.D.s since 1945. See for example “The Postwar Suburbanization of American Physics”
    http://web.mit.edu/dikaiser/www/Kaiser.Suburbs.pdf

    Way back in 1968, when there was a shortage of new academics (apparently all male), Columbia’s Jacques Barzun wrote in “The American university: how it runs, where it is going” about Ph.D. students:

    “.. . the whole rigmarole is as wasteful and ineffectual as when James first deplored it”
    referring to William James’ 1903 critique in the “The Ph.D. Octopus”

    “. . . there is really very little the young serfs can do.”

    “. . . to a level of quasi neglect close to the undergraduate’s”

    And wrote about faculty Ph.D. supervisors:

    “. . . for whom the supervising and examining of dissertations is all the more distasteful that [sic] most are exercises in fact-gathering rather than contributions to knowledge.”

    Plus if most are awful, it makes little point in attending, which is why pointing out worse than 200:1 odds is even more important.

    Plus, you posted in another thread about a 4th year doctoral student who seemed to have problems with the inverse function for exponential functions (?, exponents?), weren’t they from the US? It also seemed that you were the only one who noticed the problem. I posted a comment in that thread relating to it, asking about ln(e**x)=x or lg(10**x)=x or (x**a)**(1/a)=x but no one took much if any interest, in what I think are high school level equations.
    http://chronicle.com/article/Lack-of-Confidence-as/129528/#comment-345959129

    Please have a look and please let me know if I was in anyway close to being right.

    I think the UK uses foreigners as cheap academic labor at the graduate student, Ph.D. and postdoc levels. With the EU it should be very easy to bring in cheap Ph.D.s from the former Eastern Europe, especially relatively well trained (this may have changed since 1989) and desperate STEM Ph.D.s. Yet another reason to point out the worse than 200 to 1 odds.

  • timurid

    I was thinking about a recent “STEM Education Crisis” op-ed where the author wailed about how… quelle horreur!… only 9% of college grads were getting STEM degrees.. a precipitous plummet from the Golden Age of the 1970′s when an astonishing 11% (!!!) of graduates were in STEM. I then added another 20%-ish (being very generous) for catch-all “business” professions.

    Of course in a different conversation with a STEM evangelist, when I mentioned the small size of the actual STEM workforce the reply was, “So the number is probably x%? Well, now you know the size of the future middle class…”

  • bscmath78

    timurid, yes, those “crisis” reports, articles, op-eds, are quite irritating for those who see 40 plus years of STEM UNDERemployment.  1970 was the Boeing Bust which tossed thousands of engineers to the side of the road.  The thing was that up until 1970 there actually was high demand for certain STEM fields, but that all suddenly changed with bad economic times, winding down an expensive war, contract cancellations and the feds slashing funding, which might have a familiar, reoccurring ring to it.

    The STEM evangelists are being cruel luring the young into a high risk, relatively low return path that requires lots of talent, hard work and luck. You were quite right to challenge the idea that more students should go the STEM route.  Regardless of what percentages people are citing, the number going today is higher than realistic demand for stable middle-class jobs.  Becoming a STEM adjunct or system administrator still counts as STEM, but isn’t a route to the middle-class not with globalization and “winner-take-all” markets.

  • bscmath78

    ellenhunt, thanks again for your comments. I have replied to your earlier comments further back in this thread. 

    Here you wrote:

    “. . .is that they have absorbed a ridiculous narrative of history and of how they think things are supposed to be.”

    “A rare few will be struck by lightning and attain riches. That’s life.”

    What strikes me is that there are many who still peddle these delusions to the young. They busily write reports, articles and blog posts peddling these myths. They are being cruel.

    I don’t understand why STEM students planning a STEM life buy these delusions unless they are admitted as undergrads into Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, Caltech and a few others (especially if they got merit scholarships). Admittedly, the smarter ones probably realize the odds are against them, but decide that this is their only likely chance at a decent job.

  • timurid

    Of course the real underlying problem is the labor surplus. The hyper-competition and dysfunction so prevalent in the academic job market is spreading into the markets for other middle class professions. It’s approaching the point where, as mentioned upthread, you’ll need to be in the 90th percentile or above just to reach the (traditional) entry level. Everyone else can be a gypsy/adjunct/(profession)’s assistant, if they’re lucky…

    At some point failure is going to be the default state. Education will no longer be preparation for the inevitable next stage in life but an arena (or a casino) where you compete for the right to enter that next stage. The rationalization for going to college instead of quitting after high school… or getting an engineering degree instead of an English degree… will be “you’ll probably still fail, but at least the odds won’t be quite as stacked against you.”

    Those of us who earn the right to stay in academia in the future may not enjoy our prize so much. Universities in such a new order will be unfathomably unpleasant places where students literally fight for their lives, against each other and against the faculty. If you think the grading border wars on the frontier between A- and B+ are bloody now, just wait a decade or two…

  • bscmath78

    superdude, have you considered that your 12 year old might be better off if you used your college fund to start a successful family business now, that they could later learn and take over?  Junk food, fast food, health care, for-profit education  and some others seem to provide some success. At least you are your own boss.  Or you could fund their new business. 

    Over the years, many of the students who had decent summer jobs seemed to be employed in a family business.  Many businesses do fail but your child will at least have had an excellent education on which to make an educated choice of whether college is right for them, and you will have tax deductions. Think, SuperDude Tutoring Inc. there is lots of money on the table ready to be taken.;-)

  • bscmath78

    timurid, as Hobbes would say, “Bellum omnium contra omnes” or “The war of all against all”.

    “Nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam”
    “Endless money forms the sinews of war”

    - Cicero 

    Though it would be more accurate for this war to say “Endless credit forms the sinews of war”  resulting in endless debt.

    In the current circumstances, it seems appropriate that these are Latin phrases, not Greek.  Greek sovereign debt, anyone?  PIIGS sovereign debt, anyone? It is unclear how the repeated throws of the dice will play out.  Interesting times.

    “May you live in interesting times”- a famous curse of unclear origins

    Your moniker of “timurid” suggests the blood lust and lust for conquest of Tamerlane, so you might do well in the future wars. ;-)

    Oh well.

    “Experience is the best of schoolmasters, only the school fees are heavy.”

    – Carlyle

    “If any question why we died
    Tell them, because our fathers lied.”

    - Kipling, in reference to WW I, at some point after his son was MIA in 1915 at the Battle of Loos. Eventually confirmed as KIA.

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    Family law is low margin, high competition, under assault from legalzoom.com and its ilk, and thanks to the ridiculous pedagogy of law school, I literally know less about probate, trusts, and divorces than I do about string theory (and I was not a science major in undergrad).  Hanging a shingle costs money – between student loans, malpractice insurance, health insurance, legal database subscriptions, and even a “virtual office suite,” and we’re talking close to five thousand a month.  You know what’s hard?  Finding clients willing to pay an attorney to do something that they have no experience doing, particularly in a state with THOUSANDS of practicing family law attorneys. Oh, and malpractice claims are way, way up, precisely because naive/overly confident law school grads are hanging their own shingles without the first inkling of how to practice law. I do not intend to follow suit.

    Also, “You can’t be forced to pay on your student loan debt in a way that will seriously crimp your lifestyle?”  What planet are you from, and how do I get there?

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    From an anecdotal standpoint, my undergrad alma mater, which I am declining to disclose to maintain some semblance of anonymity, is actually in the top 1% of the US’s 4000 colleges, as judged by both the USNWR and Forbes “Best College” rankings.  In fact, it is in the top 1/2 of 1% of colleges.  But, those “top employers” that bscmath speaks of only care for the top 1/6 or 1/8 of the top 1% of colleges (basically, the upper half of the Ivy League & MIT, Stanford, Chicago, Williams, Wellesley, and maybe a few others, depending on the employer’s location).

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    My folks live a few miles away from one of the world’s largest math software developers.  Basically: WASP/HBS management team, 85 or 90% H1B or foreign-born employees. It’s noxious.

  • fdonoghue

    I agree with much of what you say, especially your point about expanding the post-secondary paths we offer to our high school seniors.  While it’s true that earnings prospects for high school grads are even worse, they’re at least not saddled with massive amounts of student debt.

  • fdonoghue

    You’re welcome.  I was really surprised that the student, Chase Bollig–smart guy–chose an a piece that’s even bleaker than most of what I write.  He speculated, among other things, that we might need to start thinking of Ph.D.s in English as something other than a one-career degree.  His timing was perfect, as we’d just been visited by Paula Chambers, whose consultiing agency, TheVersatilePh.D. (I wrote about it recently) promotes the search for alternatives to college teaching.  We’ve been working on that thread ever since.

  • fdonoghue

    A former colleague of mine often complained that he made twice as much as a plumber in NYC than as an English professor, but our country’s investment in trades and craftsmanship is pathetic.  Most of our plumbing, carpentry, and paiting business, so far as I’ve experienced them, are family operations.  Why can’t the training be more open and systematic?  Makes me wish Burton Bledstein’s book had been more polemical.

  • fdonoghue

    Soul-crushing to an English major like me, but these are exactly the hypotheticals that inspired the post.

  • sibyl

    You say that “the American educational system” produces the wrong kinds of graduates, and then note the “mismatch between what my students major in and where the jobs are.”  How much of this is the fault of “the system” and how much the fault of those students?  Do the students need to have some of their curricular freedoms taken away?  Do popular humanities majors like English and history need to limit the number of majors they accept?  Or do they have to make themselves unsexy so that they don’t attract so many students?  What is the responsibility of colleges and universities in ameliorating the mismatch?

  • bscmath78

    Unemployed_Northeastern, thank you once again for your insights.  Although I was thinking students, not colleges, you make an excellent point since someone who is accepted into a top 1% or better college might therefore consider themselves to be in the top 1% of students.  I keep forgetting that there are so many colleges, probably because I have an R1 bias. I also keep forgetting how many millions of students are now in college.  Thanks for the corrections. What your information implies is that the situation is WORSE than I was suggesting.
     
    Taking your narrower criterion: 1/8 of 1% of 4000 colleges = 5, so Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Wharton would fill it up the top 5 which is the top 1/8 of 1%.  According to the CHE article “Cornell and Brown are Second Tier”, MIT doesn’t make it onto the list, at least for the type of employer they were examining. 

    So probably the simplest is to say if you aren’t in the Top 5 or Top 10 – as defined by your prospective elite employers, as well as clubbable, your prospects are dim, for elite employment.  This allows the MIT STEM grad to be prized by a Silicon Valley/Route 128 start-up even though ignored by the top Investment Banks, Management Consulting firms etc. It also only listed Stanford as “(maybe)” though that might because the elite firms can’t be bothered looking that far West. This may be why Stanford and MIT grads found so many companies. So maybe they and society benefit from elite firm tunnel vision?

    Anyway, prospects tend to be grim, with talent, hard work and luck necessary, especially if you weren’t “born with a silver spoon in your mouth”, correction, solid gold spoon.

    On the other hand, you might luck out and marry the boss’ child that you met at college. But what are the odds of that? ;-)   As usual, picking the right parents is often the key first step.  ;-)

  • bscmath78

    MIT’s David Kaiser provides an interesting perspective in: “Cold War requisitions, scientific manpower, and the production of American physicists after World War II”

    http://web.mit.edu/dikaiser/www/Kaiser.ColdWarReq.pdf

    It contains interesting bits about physics grad students like:

    “Piore had phrased things differently to an advisory group to the Pentagon: ‘Graduate students working part time are slave labor.’”

    Sadly, no observations like: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

    “Within just one year of the widely-quoted AIP report of 1964, well over twice as many young physicists registered with the AIP placement service than there were jobs available . . .

    At the annual April meetings of the APS, held in Washington, D.C., the numbers turned grimmer: 1,010 physicists competed for 63 jobs in 1970, 1,053 for 53 in 1971. . . .

    The AIP’s Placement Service Advisory Committee estimated in October 1970 that by July of 1971, the nation’s ‘demand level’ for scientists and engineers would slip to 44 percent what it had been a decade earlier.”

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    @chronicle-15bf71a93d53f3fa044dd3b5f99a7a58:disqus 

    Despite the CHE article referencing Lauren Rivera’s research on the hiring practices of super-elite professional services providers (consulting/law/investment banking), when they need someone with an understanding of math or science, for instance, in a quant role or as a life sciences attorney or as a consultant with actual number-crunching ability, those employers go running for the MIT grads.  Around Boston, law firms routinely try to get postdocs to go to law school, so that they can get attorneys who can actually understand what the hell all the pharma and biotech clients are doing.

    Somewhat similarly, some of the top management consulting firms love to hire out of Williams/Amherst/Wellesley, and some may even degrade themselves as much as to occasionally hire out of a Swarthmore or Bowdoin or Smith.

    As to your thoughts concerning top 1% of schools versus top 1% of students, it is certainly true that some of the brightest students go to “non-elite,” “average,” or “easy” colleges, for any variety of reasons. Financial aid, desire to keep debt to a minimum, location, area of study, etc. Likewise, some of the most breathtakingly insipid, unintellectual, idiotic people I have ever encountered went to Harvard, Stanford, or Williams, and got in to those institutions on the basis of legacy/family wealth, athletics, or attendance at one of the “proper” prep schools. On the other end of the spectrum, some of the best and brightest are so monomaniacally focused on study, study, STUDY! that their lack of other skill sets (communication, congeniality, ablity to stoop as low as to work with non-Mensa members, etc) render them atrocious, incompetent employees. But, that’s not really the issue here. No one is talking about the quality of college grads; we are talking about the perception of quality of college grads. We are talking about bullsh*t rankings and the notions of prestige and how those are equated with positive attributes to their grads. We are talking about HR departments entirely subrogating their responsibilities to college admissions committees. We are admitting that a rose by any other name does NOT smell as sweet. Will the Harvard sociology grad who slept through their TA-taught classes make as good an investment banker as the cum laude econ grad from a liberal arts college who exclusively had tenured profs teaching classes of under 25 students? Of course not. But we don’t live in such a meritocracy. We live in a pseudo-feudal society, where the name of one’s house determines one’s future titles and land holdings.

    All in all, the Cravath Method of hiring is alive and doing better than ever, sadly.  We are rapidly returning to a time where the Exeter/Yale and Deerfield/Harvard types hold nearly every position of power, wealth, or influence in government, banking, and academia.  Can a return trip to eugenics be far behind?

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…”

  • bscmath78

    Unemployed_Northeastern, once again, thank you for your latest insights and for your correcting my comments on MIT etc. Your post didn’t have Reply button so I posted here.

    It is unfortunate that too few students will learn in time, what you have learned at great cost.  It is interesting that there are only a few like you, at least at the CHE site, prepared to contradict the typical message.  “Cui bono?” helps explain the typical official CHE content and that of many of the posters.   But still, one might think for that those with tenure might be willing to point out that “The Emperor has no clothes!”

    But surely those starting at Groton or Andover will still have some hope if they can make it to HYPS? ;-)

    Thank you again.

  • Prof_truthteller

    I was referring to personal anecdotes as not being helpful to “informing the national debate” at which level we need to look at overall trends. I do agree with you on what the numbers tell us, it’s impossible to deny that the risk is greater and the stakes are higher.  

    And, your reply to my question was what I was expecting readers to think or imagine.

  • bscmath78

    Prof_truthteller, although I think I agree somewhat with your point, the thing is that personal anecdotes that contradict the conventional wisdom/official propaganda, are typically far more useful in “informing the national debate” because it is so easy for people to ignore the contradicting numbers in the Royal Society report or other contradictory material, if they don’t have a personal stake, personal experience, empathy or sympathy for the misled student. 

    My posts are often to counter claims of the wondrous world or future for STEM student or the dire shortage of STEM graduates or other such nonsense. Periodically, for 40-odd years, students, parents and taxpayers have been misled.

    But for during that same period, many thought that people like Unemployed_Northeastern  were making out like bandits, so his series of posts have been very eye opening and they provide a basis for checking other material that backs up his claims for those not from the top y law schools or not in the top x of their class.

    Especially interesting are the confirmations of how colleges and law schools game the stats for employment and salary.   If only the 5 who got $160K/per year jobs right out of school respond, then things look pretty good. Seeing how organizations game the system, game the stats, game students and game taxpayers, is very informative and alerts one to the possibility that others are doing similar things in other fields. It is very educational.

  • bscmath78

    “Some of them want to use you
    . . .
    Some of them want to abuse you
    . . .
    Sweet dreams are made of this
    Who am I to disagree?”

    So sang Annie Lennox in a 1983 hit.

    Not my dreams and not agreeable, but certainly a clear warning.

  • bscmath78

    “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”
     
    What college official or professor would tell their STEM students this?  It is hardly in their interests, even though the few STEM students to continue would be better prepared psychologically for real STEM life, than they typically are with fanciful tales.  Garibaldi, Teddy Roosevelt and most famously Churchill used these words.
     
    With the Nazi Blitzkrieg smashing the Allies in the West, the Appeaser Neville Chamberlain fell from power on May 10, 1940, to be replaced by Churchill as Prime Minister.  In his first speech as PM to the House of Commons, May 13, 1940, Churchill said in part:
     
    “I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government, ‘I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat’. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering.”

    On May 26, 1940, the rescue of escaping Allied troops from the beaches of Dunkirk would start. 

    Certainly, circumstances are in no way as close to being as dire, but it is still important that STEM students go in with their eyes open.  Lies, ignorance, myths, illusions and complacency typically lead to dire circumstances, the longer people remain blind, or avert their eyes, the more dire things will become.  This is why Churchill needed to be blunt. No “Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This).”

    “You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs — Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.”

    It’s also worth remembering what really dire times were like.

  • DorothyP

    Rather than go to film school, a high school grad would do better to just start working, as a PA, a runner, any entry level job. Then, he or she can specialize, join a union and actually work in film, rather than running around for 4 years, making movies with a cell phone camera. Same with journalism.

  • micheleme

    I attended one of these colleges and had an outstanding experience!

  • tenured_radical

    Can you imagine someone who didn’t go to college being able to understand what you just wrote? What happened to the notion of an educated citizenry able to make decisions for themselves?  If the most important decision a young person can make now is not to become educated, we have indeed hit bottom.  What about the rest of us deciding to insist that government step up to its responsibilities and make college affordable again so that any person who chooses to become educated can do so?

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    A few points:

    - As to your #1, it is ironic that of the majors employers desire, engineering is one of the most challenging and intense paths of study, but most studies show that business majors acquire the fewest reading and analytical skills of any major AND are the most likely to cheat.  So much for wanting the best and brightest.  Additionally, it is no secret that MBA programs are just about the fluffiest grad schools out there, with the exception of Chicago and a few others that function more like think-tanks than boozy soirees for future would-be masters of the universe.

    - As to #2, I would push the liberal arts grad programs to top 3 or top 5, and only if you receive grants or aid to attend.  Good luck finding an MBA program to float you.

    - As to #3, Just don’t go to law school unless you can get into Yale or Stanford, which really are the only two law schools left where one is reasonably assured of postgrad employment at a salary level that makes the >$75,000/year cost of attendance worthwhile.  Harvard Law is simply too large (like 500 students per class) for full employment in this economy.  Indeed, I have met several unemployed Harvard Law grads during this recession, and I don’t mean kids waiting for a white shoe firm to pick them up – I mean they can’t get a frigging job.  Any job.  Ditto for Columbia & NYU (especially NYU).  Don’t know too much about Chicago Law as I am in the Northeast, but firms hire based on rankings, and it is “only” ranked 5th.  After the top six schools, which go by the shorthand HYSCCN on the law blogs, schools, your odds start dropping quite dramatically.  I would say one is worse than 50/50 by the time they get to the bottom of the top 10, and less than 1/3 by the time they leave the vaunted T14, T14 being another USNWR shorthand.  Since USNWR started their law school rankings started in 1989, the same fourteen schools have occupied the top fourteen spots.  They switch around on occasion, but it has always been the same schools, and in fact I believe it has ALWAYS been Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia at the top, in that order.

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    I came across a symposium yesterday for college apologists, put on by my dear friends at Northeastern along with Brown and Bates, a curious mix of institutions if there ever was one.  Naturally, it was held at Bates, because if one can choose between Boston, Providence, and Lewiston, Maine, who wouldn’t choose Lewiston?  Not open to the public, either, which is no surprise.  But some of the quotes are just priceless.  http://www.bates.edu/news/2011/11/01/college-costs-report/

    “More than ever, Merisotis [a Bates trustee] said, post-secondary education is not a guarantee, but ‘a prerequisite for entry into middle-class life in our country. To put it more starkly, without a college degree, there’s a very good chance you’re going to be poor.’”
    “[D]espite the common wisdom that college costs are out of control, higher educational institutions are actually serving as a bulwark against the widening income gap.”

    “[A]ny other industry whose product was as much desired as higher education would follow the rule of supply and demand by raising prices. Instead, higher education is containing price increases.”

    “Despite the economic advantages conferred by a college degree, as Baum [an adviser to the College Board] said, the media’s approach seems to be, “We found an unemployed college graduate and we’re going to write a story about him.”

    Meanwhile:
    - Bates College annual cost of attendance: $55,300 http://www.bates.edu/financial-services/

    - Brown University annual cost of attendance: $54,370 (less than Bates?!?!)  http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/applyingtobrown/financialaid.html

    - Northeastern University annual cost of attendance: $51,362
    - average indebtedness of Northeastern grads: not reported by the college http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=456; however, I did find this: http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/111460/is-the-college-debt-bubble-ready-to-explode  Kelli Space, 23, graduated from Northeastern University in 2009 with a sociology degree and PERSONALLY owing $201,000, $189,000 of which are private student loans from Sallie Mae.

    It’s all a bit precious, isn’t it?

  • bscmath78

    tenured_radical, your wrote, “Can you imagine someone who didn’t go to college being able to understand what you just wrote? What happened to the notion of an educated citizenry able to make decisions for themselves?”

    Well, in fact, it is quite easy to imagine middle and high school students understanding Professor Donoghue’s article, regardless of its deficiencies. At least 10% of middle and high school students used to be able to do this kind of thing. And the citizenry used to read Thomas Paine, Jefferson and Lincoln without going to college, and were able to make their own decisions.

    No doubt, if Professor Donoghue had entitled his piece “Grad School is Slavery!” or “200 to 1 Odds Against You”, and then written in support of the title proposition, it would have been easier to understand and closer to reality for 80% of students.

    Some children are NOT gullible and stupid! Some children could make good decisions for themselves. Just as non-college people read Thomas Paine in the run-up to the Revolution and read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers after, the non-college educated have long been able to make effective political decisions for themselves.

    From the beginning, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle taught tyrants, the sons of tyrants, wannabee tyrants, traitors or sophists.

    College doesn’t create an “educated” citizenry, in the sense of a citizenry prepared and able to effectively take part in political life, as opposed to the political elites obtaining some finishing school gloss and rhetorical skills, like the pigs in “Animal Farm”. Rather, history has repeatedly demonstrated that the college educated have a special propensity to rush to support tyranny of any stripe.

    Whether it is British tyrants, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler or Mao, tyrants have had the college educated as eager supporters, collaborators, apologists, courtiers, “fellow travelers”, “useful fools” or appeasers.  College, as an instrument of orthodoxy, tends to generate conformity, blinkered thinking and orthodoxy, though they might be different orthodoxies. It is a naturally authoritarian environment.

    It might be true that 10+% might avoid its noxious nature, but they are likely to either be the 10+% in middle school who understood or the larger number who spent college pursuing sex, drugs, rock’n'roll, drink, sports, partying, networking, gambling and computer gaming.

  • bscmath78

    tenured_radical, just to provide some quantitative evidence that college adds little to decision making capability, at least of the political kind, have a look at an ISI civics test which seemed to demonstrate that college causes a loss of knowledge at some colleges and a failure to learn much at the rest.

    Back in 2010, in my 13th post in a Professor Vedder thread, I wrote about the ISI civics quiz:
    http://chronicle.com/blogPost/A-Modest-Proposal-Searchin/26949/

    “It might be worth considering the impact of the findings of the ISI’s report “Failing our Students, Failing America”:

    http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2007/summary_summary.html

    Finding 3, names 4 universities that were in the top 12, in one set of ratings. These 4 universities had seniors who did worse than the freshmen on a simple civics quiz. It suggests that the university experience resulted in worse outcomes. It calls it “negative learning”.

    Finding 1, includes the interesting tidbit that the best average was among Harvard seniors who got a D+!

    It is interesting that there does not seem to have been a rush away from the 4 top-rated universities that were named as having freshmen who did better than seniors. There also doesn’t seem to have been a rush away from the additional 4 colleges and universities listed with a negative “value added” (total of 8 with a negative value) at:

    http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2007/major_findings_finding1.html

    which has a chart of 50 colleges and universities with the scores and the “value added”.

    Unfortunately, there was no testing of 8th or 5th graders. It would have been fun to see which elementary schools did better than Harvard seniors.”

  • bscmath78

    tenured_radical, you seem to be under the misconception that college has something to do with being “educated”, nothing could be further from the truth.  College may do some forms of “training.” Being “educated” is something that happens in a child’s mind, not in college.

    Consuming these items in the 9th grade or earlier is the start of an “education”:

    Zamyatin’s “We”  – novel
    Huxley’s “Brave New World” – novel
    Orwell’s “Animal Farm” – novel and animated film (some say the film was partly financed by the CIA)
    Orwell’s “1984″ – novel and film
    Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451″ – novel and film
    Atwood’s
    “Handmaid’s Tale” – novel, film, opera (some say the novel was inspired by the Harvard English department and it definitely occurs in and around Harvard)

    Please have a look at my various postings trying unsuccessfully to explain this to Peter Wood
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-university-of-stonehenge-part-2-of-3/30451#comment-323063660

  • bscmath78

    tenured_radical, further evidence of the lack of “education” occurring at colleges is “Academically Adrift” which provides CLA evidence that a significant number of college students do not improve on cognitive measurements and the rest improve very little.
     
    Now it so happens that I have serious doubts about CLA and “Academically Adrift” so I would argue that its reception shows that either college administrators and faculty are lacking in basic critical thinking skills or that they are opportunists. ;-)
     
    You can see some of my arguments against CLA and “Academically Adrift” starting here:
    http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/richard-vedder-on-the-ills-of-higher-education/28716#comment-156293507

  • bscmath78

    Unemployed_Northestern, I have never understood the list pricing.  Though, in a sense, it might makes sense that you should pay more if you weren’t good enough to get into HYPS.  Though why they don’t auction off the spots is unclear, though some claim you get more money through “development admits” with donation money.

    Onetime Harvard President Charles Eliot didn’t like “the stupid sons of the rich”, so someone has to take them. ;-) They need the compensation for taking them and providing the facilities that they want. ;-)

  • bscmath78

    Here is some more evidence of the questionable intellectual value (which should not be confused with the economic value) of college, even with the special benefits and extra costs of attending a SLAC/LAC:
     
    http://chronicle.com/article/What-Spurs-Students-to-Stay-in/129670/#comment-357591638
     
    “Among students in the small colleges they studied, 33 percent failed to show significant gains in learning . . .” 

    which is compared to the earlier “Academically Adrift” report of: “. . . 36 percent of college students show no significant gains in learning between freshman and senior year.”

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    One more thing for you, bscmath78, to illustrate how us professional folk (JD/MBA) have been scewed over by the system.  This was just released by University of Illinois U-C Law School:

    http://www.uillinois.edu/our/news/2011/Law/Nov7.UofI.FinalReport.pdf

    In short, the law school fabricated the GPA and LSAT scores of incoming students over several years, along with the number of applicants and number of acceptances by the school, all in an effort to boost its USNWR Law School Ranking.

    Hell, one year they changed the average LSAT score from a 163 to a 168.  That’s like an undergrad college changing their average SAT score from a 1300 to a 1500.  All in an effort to get kids coming in the door, year after year, for every skyrocketing levels of tuition.

    Oh, and the ABA’s response? A temporary censure of the law school. No loss of accreditation, no impact on any administrator’s bar status for perpetuating fraud to induce kids to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend, nothing. What crap.

  • bscmath78

    I posted in the wrong spot, sorry, please see above my response to Unemployed_Northeastern.

  • bscmath78

    Unemployed_Northeastern, once again, thank you for the information.  It seems incredible that it is just a “slap on the wrist”, especially incredible since they appear to be betraying their own “young” with such a mild reaction.  Sadly, I fear many students will on learn this type of information when it is too late.

    I am curious if you have had a chance to review the article and comment thread
    that I mentioned recently?
    http://chronicle.com/article/What-Spurs-Students-to-Stay-in/129670/#comment-357591638

    At your original college did you observe the general lack of “critical thinking” or other improvements that is claimed for the survey participants?

    From some of your posts in other threads, it would appear that “Cui bono?”, “tilt at windmills” and “And yet it moves,” would mean nothing to most of your fellow graduates either while at college or within 6 months of graduation. Any guess as to what fraction of CHE readers would understand? Did your interest in reading a variety of materials start before you went to college? Were the seeds sown long ago for your reading of Sun Tzu?

  • Unemployed_Northeastern

    Shouldn’t be too surprising – the folks that run the ABA come from one of two places: large law firms or law school administrations.  Therefore, the ABA focuses on on how large firms can become larger, how law schools can make more money, and ignores the 2/3 of attorneys who work at law firms of five attorneys or less (in addition to the government and NPO folk that they also ignore).  Every law school in the land is still claiming 90-99% employment @ a median between $100k and $160k.  There are likely no more than half a dozen law schools where this is true, and 194 schools that are exaggerating at best, and committing fraud at worst.

    What spurs students to stay in school is the indoctrination most Americans get from the cradle that education is the one and only path to social mobility in the United States.  Plus, what other option is there?  Be a high school grad and have a 99% chance of being destitute, or go to college and have a marginally better chance of succeeding, with the caveat that you may end up buried in loans of which no one is properly explaining the risks.  Why becoming a plumber or electrician is frowned upon by the middle classes is baffling; you can’t outsource plumbing.  You can outsource almost all white collar work.

    At my undergrad alma mater, most kids were above average in intelligence, but apathetic.  Relatively few displayed anything like genius, or even great promise.  For that matter, I found most of the professors to be subpar.  To recap what I have relayed in earlier posts, I went to a NESCAC institution, but not Amherst or Williams (whose endowments, facilities, reputation and job placement far outshine the rest of the group).  Ergo, one of these was my alma mater (listed in alphabetical order): Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Conn College, Hamilton, Middlebury, Trinity, Tufts, or Wesleyan.  I should note, however, that due to a combination of scholarships and family sacrifice, I was able to attend a superb New England private/prep school.*  A place with shocking facilities, oceans of money, an armada of teachers whose CV’s almost always included terminal degrees from top programs, etc.  I freely admit that being in such an atmosphere at a tender age may have spoiled me or raised my academic expectations too high.  Regardless, the best of my NESCAC college didn’t match the worst of my prep school education, be it the quality of instruction, the level of classroom discussion, the challenge of the materials, the athletics, the arts, whatever.  College was a giant step backwards.  Many of my high school classmates and grads from schools in that prep league had similar experiences, at colleges ranging from Regional State U right up to the Ivies.  To be brutally honest, I found my college classes to be largely dull, unchallenging, and largely taught by tenured profs who just didn’t care anymore.  I grew very dissatisfied by sophmore year, threw together all my work and studying  at the last minute (including an honors thesis), and more or less spent my time wandering off to Boston or NYC every weekend in search for intelligent life.  A shame, really.  I quite easily could have pegged my GPA on the ceiling, but was so utterly bored and dismayed and disappointed with what I perceived to be a horrid college and college education that I just didn’t care.  I love learning, but took no joy in my college experience.  Hence my matriculation at Northeastern for law school instead of, say, Yale or Chicago.

    As for my fellow college classmates, the usual LAC rules applied.  The connected didn’t give a hoot about the quality of the college, cuz’ they had a job lined up at daddy’s bank or consultancy since birth.  The summa cum laude crowd could generally struggle and wheeze their way into a job at a midlevel professional firm or top (but usually not very top) grad school.  Most kids who applied to med school got in (somewhere).  The vast majority of students, though, graduated jobless, usually spent a year or two un/underemployed, and then took the inevitable path to whatever grad/law/biz school accepted them.  The college itself proudly proclaims that between 70 and 80% of each class in the last 15 years has gone on to an advanced degree, which I personally think is a horrible stat to parade in this age when people are finally starting to question the value of an ivy-less humanities degree.  Career services basically consisted of two part-time workers in a storage closet.  We probably had fewer on-campus recruiters than most community colleges located in major urban areas.

    As to “Cui bono,” allow me to quote The Departed.  The context is unimportant for our purposes:

    Alec Baldwin: “Yes, but cui bono?”
    Matt Damon: “Cui gives a sh*t?  It’s got a frigging bow on it!”

    I think that nicely sums up the vantage of most CHE readers, and certainly the college pundits and politicians and all else who blindly bang the “education at any cost” war drums.

    My love of reading is lifelong, instilled by my parents and 1st grade romps through the Encyclopedia Britannica, books on dinosaurs, and The Phantom Tollbooth.  One of my biggest disappointments in college was that the English Department was terminally infected with the postmodern -isms at the expense of the Canon.  Call me an outdated Harold Bloom acolyte, but I think an English department that doesn’t offer courses in Chaucer, Dickens, Joyce, or Hawthorne (to name but four omissions) but has two courses in postmodern Irish poetry is not really an English department at all.  Over the years, I have read much of the Western and Eastern canons, nearly all of the classics (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Middle Eastern, Indian, Chinese, Pre-Columbian, etc), innumberable works of history and philosophy from around the world, works concerning advanced math and physics, all of the religious texts of the world’s five major religions, economic treatises, and so on and so forth.  I have little fear in stating that I have read more than most, including most academics. Doesn’t make me any more employable, though.

    *I should note that my high school is NOT a Deerfield/Andover/Exeter/Taft-type institution where 50% of the class goes HYP every year like clockwork because that has been the routine since before the American Revolution. It is not an old-money center of power or a place where a Freemason-esque handshake whisks you into the DOJ, Myopia Hunt, or the corner office at Ropes & Gray, in the vein of the schools we were mocking upthread.

  • bscmath78

    Unemployed_Northeastern, once again, thank you for the information and for taking the time to provide such an extensive response.

    Sadly, it is so often true that Virtue is its own, and only, reward, at least in this life. Worse, sometimes you are punished for Virtue. Sometimes it is only in the Book of Job that there is eventually a happy end to the story.

    BTW, it was a good thing that you provided the footnote since at one point I was theorizing a  Groton-like background.

  • lucapacioli

    This looks like advice directed to staff members of a corporation.   In academia, the first is “Your are teaching large sections of undergradiates at 8 a.m. three times a week.”   Or three nights a week.

  • graddirector

    People are not pestering you about undone tasks while  they used to send you multiple reminders by email and get into your face about them.  This is because the undone tasks are now being used to build the case for dismissal.

  • johnbarnes

    A very strong sign is that you are being moved away from required courses; if all upper division courses in Subject required the background of Subject 221, and you used to teach Subject 221 2-3 times per year, and the new hire is now teaching it … and your courseload is mostly Special Topics in Subject and Subject Elective … polish that resume.  They are preparing a painless transition (or you have made a nuisance of yourself by teaching something different from what they need — a surprisingly frequent cause of firing).

  • 11179102

    Your job might be in jeopardy if:

    - the department secretary keeps asking “what’s your name again?”

    - students keep saying “I understand that it’s safer for my fall schedule not to sign up for your classes.”

    - advisees keep saying “Y’know, I think Dr. So-and-so may be more suited for this project.”

    - the custodian mentions something about “they’ve scheduled me to repaint this office in June.”

    - your telling your fellow young colleague about the great person you met in town and you think it might lead to something, and the colleague says “Oh, her?  That’s the Dean’s wife.”

    - you notice your department chair has a copy of your little Christmas party stunt involving the xerox machine and your rear end.

    These are not good signs that things are going well.  

  • smalltimeguru

    this list pretty much sums up what its like to working in academia (or any publicly funded organization). i have been around of 20+ years and this is hows its been for most of that time. odds  are it will contiue to be like this for another 20+ years.

  • dreamfeed

    Unemployment rate for non-grads is more than double that of grads.  Of course, this means that getting a degree only increases your chances of having a job from ~90% to ~95%.
    Lifetime earnings for grads also more than doubles, a difference of over $1million, which is obviously way more than the total cost of the loans…  Of course past performance doesn’t guarantee future results.

    Also, these numbers include all sorts of colleges.  I don’t need any statistics to be pretty sure that if you have the opportunity to go to Harvard, it makes economic sense to take it.