16 Apr 16
Originally posted by finneganIn fact at least in the US, the value of a college degree in earning power has steadily risen for decades:
You merely make my own argument for me. American universities are not primarily concerned with academic freedom. They have long been bought into the corporate world and serve the interests of the corporations that fund them,. Student places in the prestige institutions are increasingly dictated by inherited wealth and influence, teaching is a commerical en ...[text shortened]... t American universities will decay in the same manner under the conflicting pressures they face.
Among millennials ages 25 to 32, median annual earnings for full-time working college-degree holders are $17,500 greater than for those with high school diplomas only. That gap steadily widened for each successive generation in the latter half of the 20th century. As of 1986, the gap for late baby boomers ages 25 to 32 was just more than $14,200, and for early boomers in 1979, it was far smaller at $9,690. The gap for millennials is also more than twice as large as it was for the silent generation in 1965, when the gap for that cohort was just under $7,500 (all figures are in 2012 dollars).
A graph of earnings of high school graduates ages 25 to 32 by generation. Put another way, today's young high school-only grads earn about 62 percent of what their college-graduate peers earn. In 1965, the figure was nearly 81 percent.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/11/study-income-gap-between-young-college-and-high-school-grads-widens
And the percentage of the population who are college grads is far higher than it was:
The percentage who had completed a bachelor's or higher degree increased from 23 percent in 1990 to 34 percent in 2014; and the percentage who had completed a master's or higher degree increased from 5 percent in 1995 to 8 percent in 2014.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=27
17 Apr 16
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI always enjoy your contributions which are invariably well informed and articulate. As so often happens between us, what you write confirms and does not disprove my argument. The idea that education has an intrinsic value outside of its utility as a certificate of entry into employment, or that academic research should not be driven by the commercial interests of the corporate world, is an idea that seems to go entirely beyond your field of vision. The very fact that numbers of institutions and students have escalated results in the routinization and buraucratization of academic life as it is transformed from a creative enterprise into a conservative machine for the social reproduction of approved knowledge.
In fact at least in the US, the value of a college degree in earning power has steadily risen for decades:
Among millennials ages 25 to 32, median annual earnings for full-time working college-degree holders are $17,500 greater than for those with high school diplomas only. That gap steadily widened for each successive generation in the latter half of ...[text shortened]... from 5 percent in 1995 to 8 percent in 2014.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=27
Consider the rise in earning power of university graduates. Does this not simply say in different words that graduates have taken over highly paid positions that formerly did not require degrees? Have you really not seen the massive evidence that the best economic opportunities require certificates from the elite universities, access to which is dominated by inherited wealth and priviliged networks? Have we not - since the Eighties - also entered a world in which graduates work in menial roles for apathetic corporations because, frankly, their education is not sufficient compensation for their poverty in both wealth and social connections? Sure they earn more than non graduates but only by pushing non graduates entirely off the economic ladder. Why do you think there is such a big increase in graduates with masters degrees? Is it not because the first degree has become devalued to the point where it is no better than a secondary school qualification used to be. The evidence of grade inflation is overwhelming because it has become so pivotal to the commercial prospects of schools and colleges, who sell a product of declining worth at escalating prices.
People are usually confused about the concepts within the famous work "The Rise of the Meritocracy". The point is not that the world after WW2 became more economically just, but that the educated and the fortunate have seized on a new and perverse line of reasoning to justify their disproportionate share of opportunity and privilige. In the modern world as in classical China, when the politcal world decrees a shift to recruitment on merit rather than inherited privilige, the priviliged class rapidly secures control of the examination process, defines the criteria for success and secures a massively unfair share of the resulting rewards. Just as mediaeval China featured unhappy scholars trudging through the countryside in search of non existent opportunityy, so today we see graduates in absurd lines of work unrelated to their skills or educational attainment.
Has the massive growth in education, the huge increase in economic rewards for education, resulted in a shift of the distribution of wealth away from inherited privilige and status? No. The opposite. As you know very well, wealth and income distribution is continuing to be massively distorted in favour of the elite in an emerging plutocracy. But in the ideology of normbenign and his pals, that is because the wealthy deserve it all on merit. The reproduction of privilige is far more important to western educational values than any academic ideal.
The fish cannot see the water.
17 Apr 16
Originally posted by finnegan=== The very fact that numbers of institutions and students have escalated results in the routinization and buraucratization of academic life as it is transformed from a creative enterprise into a conservative machine for the social reproduction of approved knowledge. ===
I always enjoy your contributions which are invariably well informed and articulate. As so often happens between us, what you write confirms and does not disprove my argument. The idea that education has an intrinsic value outside of its utility as a certificate of entry into employment, or that academic research should not be driven by the commercial i ...[text shortened]... rtant to western educational values than any academic ideal.
The fish cannot see the water.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
People can learn whatever they want whenever they want about whatever they want in today's day and age to increase their breadth of knowledge or creativity or sense of art or whatever.
University, which costs substantial investments of time and money and which people often give their best years to achieve, ought primarily to increase the student's ability to produce and earn a living wage for life.
Originally posted by sh76When I went to university I thought that I was doing something that would enrich my understanding of the world and enable me to think more deeply and live more fully. I saw it as being about learning how to live, not about learning how to earn. And I became a teacher because I wanted to be in a position to help young people decide what kind of adult lives they wanted to lead. These are not things that can be measured in dollars and cents.
=== The very fact that numbers of institutions and students have escalated results in the routinization and buraucratization of academic life as it is transformed from a creative enterprise into a conservative machine for the social reproduction of approved knowledge. ===
You say that like it's a bad thing.
People can learn whatever they want whenever th ...[text shortened]... e, ought primarily to increase the student's ability to produce and earn a living wage for life.
Of course it's good if university increases students' long-term earning abilities, but any education which makes that its primary goal isn't worth the name. What matters above all is students' abilities to think and feel. To regard education as a mere "investment" seems to me a bit like thinking of going to church, or synagogue, as a mere investment: a category error.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by TeinosukeIf it can do both, great. But students who do choose make decisions at age 18 to study subjects of little practical economic value often regret their investments (of time, quite aside form money) when, at age 33 with a spouse, 2 kids and a mortgage, they know a truckload about Greek architecture but very little about anything that will actually help them make money.
When I went to university I thought that I was doing something that would enrich my understanding of the world and enable me to think more deeply and live more fully. I saw it as being about learning how to live, not about learning how to earn. And I became a teacher because I wanted to be in a position to help young people decide what kind of adult lives ...[text shortened]... me a bit like thinking of going to church, or synagogue, as a mere investment: a category error.
Sure there are intangible benefits to a university education and all of those intangible things are fine and good. But I'd say developing an employable skill ought at least to be a significant goal of an education.
18 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by TeinosukePleeze.
When I went to university I thought that I was doing something that would enrich my understanding of the world and enable me to think more deeply and live more fully. I saw it as being about learning how to live, not about learning how to earn. And I became a teacher because I wanted to be in a position to help young people decide what kind of adult lives ...[text shortened]... me a bit like thinking of going to church, or synagogue, as a mere investment: a category error.
So long as universities continue to burden students with a life time of debt to pay down for getting a degree in college, a degree should be seen through an economic perspective. This is especially true In light of the draconian laws created regarding student debt. Student debt is the absolute worst to have. There is no way out. Any other debt that is not the case, except maybe what you owe the IRS.
If the degree you are obtaining cannot adequately pay down the debt you incur to achieve it, then it makes no sense to obtain it.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by sh76Spoken like a true neoliberal philistine.
If it can do both, great. But students who do choose make decisions at age 18 to study subjects of little practical economic value often regret their investments (of time, quite aside form money) when, at age 33 with a spouse, 2 kids and a mortgage, they know a truckload about Greek architecture but very little about anything that will actually help them make m ...[text shortened]... I'd say developing an employable skill ought at least to be a significant goal of an education.
Training for the skills employers require can be achieved in many ways. Traditionally, an employer would provide direct training opportunities, ranging from apprenticeships through to funding specialist and advanced training and specialist education. In some successful industrial countries, as say in Germany, there is a continuous integration of employer and college based education, with public and private funding collaborating around industry strategies as in engineering. General secondary and post secondary education is only a component in an educational policy to support an advanced, industrial society and economy. Within such a national strategy, individuals progress on merit, even though one can never remove the impact of family circumstances and the advantages of privilige.
In the neoliberal model, the telescope is reversed and all this is seen as the individual investing in their personal career plan. Employers have withdrawn much of their investment in training, and our economy moved to increasing reliance on short term, competitive contracting, removing the stability and security required to plan for a future workforce. Education that is not publicly funded is funded through personal debt, which has no significant impact on the narcissistic progeny of the economic elite and is ruinously burdensome to the children of the less prosperous. The poor do not get much look in. In the pyramid shaped pool of opportunities, the fact is that for a significant proportion of students, there is going to be an entirely negative financial return on this investment and as colleges expand to offer more of the courses students want, the economic benefit to be gained declines for students and for the economy. You end up with a lot of over educated workers in menial roles and a mass of indebted consumers unable to contribute to the economy.
Even as a way to match supply and demand, the neoliberal approach is ruinously wasteful. In early 20th Century Italy, as I mentioned earlier, there was a huge demand to study law, and the country produced a ludicrous number of unwanted lawyers. In mediaeval China there was a stupendous variety of private schools preparing countless numbers of students for a public exam system to meet a miniscule demand for a handful of positions. Scholars starved. In the UK today, students are starting to leave university with enough debt to prevent any prospect of owning a home, or even a car, and the impact in the market is already huge. Impoverishing the rising generation is not a strategy for a healthy economy. Focusing opportunity on those with inherited wealth is also deeply unethical. The wealthy pile in to provide rented housing of poor quality to those unable to buy, the finance sector enjoys interest payments as a sort of toll booth at the entrance to opportunity.
In all of this, the reality is that universities are being deployed to do the one thing for which they are precisely least suited. The university is not a good machine for mass producing job qualifications. Its role in Western culture for about 150 years was to foster creativity and innovation - and that is the goose that laid our golden egg. The neoliberal plague is killing that golden goose and replacing it with an ideas factory to train students in conformity. American students invited to think critically riot to demand they be given job qualifications without intellectual challenge. Lecturers who set demanding standards lose their positions in the commerical enterprise that pretends to be educational.
As for research, who does the work to test our much needed health remedies for the ever changing environment? The drugs companies. Who investigates the health benefits and the dangers lurking in our modern diet? The food industry. Who is in control of strategies to avoid global warming? The oil industry. Who is taking ownership of the internet? The corporations. Who is attacking advanced education and seeking its destruction? The American Taliban.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by finneganPeople have been ranting about the declining quality of university education since Oxford stopped requiring students to give their test answers in Latin and Greek. I prefer assertions that can be supported by empirical facts rather than ideologically based assertions.
I always enjoy your contributions which are invariably well informed and articulate. As so often happens between us, what you write confirms and does not disprove my argument. The idea that education has an intrinsic value outside of its utility as a certificate of entry into employment, or that academic research should not be driven by the commercial i ...[text shortened]... rtant to western educational values than any academic ideal.
The fish cannot see the water.
Your claims are rather self-contradictory; the goal of "reproduction of privilege" is hardly enhanced by a massive broadening of educational opportunities which has occurred in the last seven decades. The elite don't need a university degree to inherit their wealth. But there are a lot of young people who's parents were working class or below who are now getting university educations when such an occurrence used to be extremely rare. I personally cannot see this as anything but a positive development.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by no1marauderSure education was an engine for social opportunity. I have indeed argued that universities are the goose that laid our golden egg. And I have expressed concern that neoliberal values are killing that goose.
People have been ranting about the declining quality of university education since Oxford stopped requiring students to give their test answers in Latin and Greek. I prefer assertions that can be supported by empirical facts rather than ideologically based assertions.
Your claims are rather self-contradictory; the goal of "reproduction of privilege" i ...[text shortened]... used to be extremely rare. I personally cannot see this as anything but a positive development.
There is plenty of empirical support for such things as the distribution of wealth and income in Anglo-Saxon economies, the role of inherited status in securing places at elite universities, the role of corporations in funding scientific research and for that matter the progressive devaluation of educational qualifications. There is nothing speculative about my comments on the way business has backed away from training and development, the death of apprenticeships, the negative impact of insecure contracts and so called flexible labour on investment in human resources, the success of Germany as a world leader in engineering and manufacturing based on its collaborative model for industrial relations.
What is this terrible "ideology" under which I labour? Much of what I say above about the history of the universities comes from the writings of a professor at Pennsylvania university, Randall Collins. Most of what I say generally comes from a respected and currently relevant source in one way or another and I have consistently beeen able to defend my opinion. In fact I typically post stuff to get my recent reading matter into better shape in my own mind.
The ideology in play on this forum is neoliberalism and it is quite clear that you uncritically swallow its tenets.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by finneganSentences like your last one are exactly the problem with your posts: anyone who doesn't automatically and immediately accept whatever unconvincing position you espouse are lumped into some ill-defined enemy camp. It's the left wing version of whodey and "collectivists".
Sure education was an engine for social opportunity. I have indeed argued that universities are the goose that laid our golden egg. And I have expressed concern that neoliberal values are killing that goose.
There is plenty of empirical support for such things as the distribution of wealth and income in Anglo-Saxon economies, the role of inherited stat ...[text shortened]... y on this forum is neoliberalism and it is quite clear that you uncritically swallow its tenets.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by no1marauderI see. Thank you for your advice. And should we take it that sentences like ==="I prefer assertions that can be supported by empirical facts rather than ideologically based assertions." === are to be taken as divine sense and must not be responded to in kind?
Sentences like your last one are exactly the problem with your posts: anyone who doesn't automatically and immediately accept whatever unconvincing position you espouse are lumped into some ill-defined enemy camp. It's the left wing version of whodey and "collectivists".
19 Apr 16
Originally posted by finneganThe first article has nothing to do with "American universities" which were the subject of your rant (see last post on previous page). The US data I provided seems considerably at odds with the UK data given in the Guardian piece.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/19/degree-graduates-low-pay-high-debt-students
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/apr/13/richer-students-have-higher-graduate-income-study-finds
The second article is a "the sky is really blue and water is really wet" one. It does not prove any point you have made to say that graduates from rich families make more than graduates from non-rich ones; you would have to show some evidence that the gap is greater among such graduates then among a similar group of non-graduates. I suspect that those from rich families that do not graduate from university fare even better than those from other backgrounds who do not in relative terms. And as stated in the article:
“The research illustrates strongly that for most graduates, higher education leads to much better earnings than those earned by non-graduates,
19 Apr 16
Originally posted by finneganYou might take such a statement as a challenge to present empirical facts supporting claims such as universities' products have "declining intrinsic value", that "prestige" ones systemically exclude all but the children of the elite (in fact most of those types of institutions have programs encouraging diversity to the point of affirmative action) and that the American university system is in "decay" relative to what it was in the past.
I see. Thank you for your advice. And should we take it that sentences like ==="I prefer assertions that can be supported by empirical facts rather than ideologically based assertions." === are to be taken as divine sense and must not be responded to in kind?