Eating Tide Pods?

[NDallasRuss]

The lowest I’ve scored on various grad school entrance exams still placed me in the top 98% of testtakers.

That's really not very good.**

**Yes, I know you meant the 98th percentile - the thought of someone bragging about being in the top 98% was still funny to me.

He spoke SEVEN languages fluently as opposed to my 2.5.

To be fair to you, languages would have been a LOT easier to learn back then - there were FAR fewer words to learn.

He invented countless machines ...including the earliest polygraph machine

200+ years later and that machine's still not reliable enough to be admissible as evidence.

So yeah...TJ would have had no problems succeeding in the modern day. He was a literal genius and blows my tiny accomplishments completely out of the water.

Yes, I'm sure that he was really smart, but he had literally nothing else to do growing up but learn and read and think about things.

Imagine how many more "big thoughts" you could have thunk if you weren't busy checking boxes at every step throughout your life! How many more languages you could have picked up if your private tutors could have focused on that, instead of preparing you for the standardized test du jour. How many creative gadgets you could have dreamt up if you weren't worrying about getting x number of credits, or volunteer hours, or writing entrance essays, or financial aid, or whatever else.

My point was never intended to be that Jefferson wasn't smart. It was meant to be that his path to success was WAY clearer than anyone coming up today. First, he didn't have to compete against anyone but other white males born to prosperous families - no women, no minorities, no poors, etc. Second, he didn't have to spend time in high school racking up AP classes, taking summer school for extra math credits, getting that secretary spot on the student council, retaking the SATs, etc to pump up his college applications. Third, he didn't have to compete with 20k other applicants to get into W&M - each of whom have nearly identical applications/grades/test scores. Fourth, once he was done with college, it's not like he had to go out and get a job. He had land, he already had Monticello handed to him, he had slaves to do all the labor for him - he was in a position to continue spending time thinking big thoughts. Then, when he was ready, he probably had a pretty direct path to getting into government/leadership because there weren't but a few white males in America at that time that would have been as educated and wealthy as he was.

Sure, maybe if he was coming up today he'd still stand out, succeed, and change the world. Or, maybe he blends in quietly with 10s of 1000s of other smart kids whose resumes all read similar to the way his would, if he was forced to spend time checking boxes rather than actual learning. And even if he was on a path to success and achievement, it's all thrown off track when social media catches wind of his "extracurriculars", which would be way harder to hide nowadays than it would have been in the 1700's.

 

[Nole Lou]

That's really not very good.**

**Yes, I know you meant the 98th percentile - the thought of someone bragging about being in the top 98% was still funny to me.


To be fair to you, languages would have been a LOT easier to learn back then - there were FAR fewer words to learn.


200+ years later and that machine's still not reliable enough to be admissible as evidence.


Yes, I'm sure that he was really smart, but he had literally nothing else to do growing up but learn and read and think about things.

Imagine how many more "big thoughts" you could have thunk if you weren't busy checking boxes at every step throughout your life! How many more languages you could have picked up if your private tutors could have focused on that, instead of preparing you for the standardized test du jour. How many creative gadgets you could have dreamt up if you weren't worrying about getting x number of credits, or volunteer hours, or writing entrance essays, or financial aid, or whatever else.

My point was never intended to be that Jefferson wasn't smart. It was meant to be that his path to success was WAY clearer than anyone coming up today. First, he didn't have to compete against anyone but other white males born to prosperous families - no women, no minorities, no poors, etc. Second, he didn't have to spend time in high school racking up AP classes, taking summer school for extra math credits, getting that secretary spot on the student council, retaking the SATs, etc to pump up his college applications. Third, he didn't have to compete with 20k other applicants to get into W&M - each of whom have nearly identical applications/grades/test scores. Fourth, once he was done with college, it's not like he had to go out and get a job. He had land, he already had Monticello handed to him, he had slaves to do all the labor for him - he was in a position to continue spending time thinking big thoughts. Then, when he was ready, he probably had a pretty direct path to getting into government/leadership because there weren't but a few white males in America at that time that would have been as educated and wealthy as he was.

Sure, maybe if he was coming up today he'd still stand out, succeed, and change the world. Or, maybe he blends in quietly with 10s of 1000s of other smart kids whose resumes all read similar to the way his would, if he was forced to spend time checking boxes rather than actual learning. And even if he was on a path to success and achievement, it's all thrown off track when social media catches wind of his "extracurriculars", which would be way harder to hide nowadays than it would have been in the 1700's.

I think you're both right. He was a genius, and would have succeeded...but what would that look like?

But would the environment today have unleashed the full power of his genius? Would it have benefited the world in such a robust way?

Or would he have been some rich hedge fund manager unknown to anyone but himself and a handful of clients, or just made millions with an app that notifies you when your slaves are loafing?

 

[FSUTribe76]

That's really not very good.**

**Yes, I know you meant the 98th percentile - the thought of someone bragging about being in the top 98% was still funny to me.


To be fair to you, languages would have been a LOT easier to learn back then - there were FAR fewer words to learn.


200+ years later and that machine's still not reliable enough to be admissible as evidence.


Yes, I'm sure that he was really smart, but he had literally nothing else to do growing up but learn and read and think about things.

Imagine how many more "big thoughts" you could have thunk if you weren't busy checking boxes at every step throughout your life! How many more languages you could have picked up if your private tutors could have focused on that, instead of preparing you for the standardized test du jour. How many creative gadgets you could have dreamt up if you weren't worrying about getting x number of credits, or volunteer hours, or writing entrance essays, or financial aid, or whatever else.

My point was never intended to be that Jefferson wasn't smart. It was meant to be that his path to success was WAY clearer than anyone coming up today. First, he didn't have to compete against anyone but other white males born to prosperous families - no women, no minorities, no poors, etc. Second, he didn't have to spend time in high school racking up AP classes, taking summer school for extra math credits, getting that secretary spot on the student council, retaking the SATs, etc to pump up his college applications. Third, he didn't have to compete with 20k other applicants to get into W&M - each of whom have nearly identical applications/grades/test scores. Fourth, once he was done with college, it's not like he had to go out and get a job. He had land, he already had Monticello handed to him, he had slaves to do all the labor for him - he was in a position to continue spending time thinking big thoughts. Then, when he was ready, he probably had a pretty direct path to getting into government/leadership because there weren't but a few white males in America at that time that would have been as educated and wealthy as he was.

Sure, maybe if he was coming up today he'd still stand out, succeed, and change the world. Or, maybe he blends in quietly with 10s of 1000s of other smart kids whose resumes all read similar to the way his would, if he was forced to spend time checking boxes rather than actual learning. And even if he was on a path to success and achievement, it's all thrown off track when social media catches wind of his "extracurriculars", which would be way harder to hide nowadays than it would have been in the 1700's.

Touché on the percentile, I went back and edited.

 

[funksouljon]

I don't know about that. Despite his intelligence, ambition, and extraordinary privilege, he still died broke and miserable.

Nikola Tesla died penniless after possibly being the world's richest man (based on royalties). With plenty of documented success the end score (or net value at death) because someone is a shitty businessman shouldn't be the final and ultimate litmus test. By all measure (except final net value) he was probably in the top 98%.

 

[funksouljon]

Touché on the percentile, I went back and edited.

Too bad, I found it funny you were happy to be in the top 98%, benchmark set pretty high!

 

[TennNole17]

I pretty much agree with Mike Rowe on the whole college thing

 

[funksouljon]

This is a classic Locker Room thread. Started to bash the general intelligence of today's youth and evolved into a discussion of the university education system and great thinkers in history. Classic.

Can you imagine how many threads would die after 1 page if ANYONE could resist chasing butterflies? Much less EVERYONE chasing them.

 

[RTM58]

I am not backtracking at all. The vast majority of students go to liberal arts colleges; that is simply an easily verifiable statistic. At UCLA, more than 85% of the undergraduate degrees are granted by the liberal arts college, and I know that the liberal arts college is the largest and grants the most degrees at FSU, as well. Generally, of the 1.8 million bachelors degrees granted each year in the U.S., 1.2 are granted by the liberal arts colleges. As we all know, that liberal arts degree does essentially nothing to prepare a person for a job, good or bad.

Aren't most of UCLA degree programs liberal arts in nature? Wouldn't most of their undergraduate degrees then be granted by liberals arts college?

Good thing someone is there to support your little educational boondoggle.

FSU Donations/Income

low hanging fruit

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

I prefer chasing waterfalls.

 

[NDallasRuss]

I prefer chasing waterfalls.

Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to.

 

[Finance85]

I agree, and I believe that ultimately, maybe within our lifetimes, the system will change dramatically, precisely because college does not and can not prepare people for the workforce and because there will always be increasingly fewer "good jobs" per capita.

You keep saying that, but most professional jobs require a college degree. That's the way it is NOW.

Even people who are in a liberal arts college, or start out in a liberal arts study program in a public university, go to college in order to get a better job. Nobody goes to college with the goal of getting a job they could get without a degree. Even police officers go to college to get a better job within law enforcement than a beginning patrol officer. Are there exceptions? OF course.

You mentioned Germany, and made an excellent point. I was there a few months ago and got to learn a lot about their educational system. Your point about valuing blue collar jobs was also excellent. That said, those in the top third go to college to prepare them for the workforce, in the role that's in line with their intellect and achievement. Doctors and lawyers still have to get an undergraduate degree, they don't go straight to medical or law school.

 

[BelemNole]

But they don't go to college to get a "middle management" degree or a cop degree. The people hiring just know the value of a college education beyond your class in accounting. It makes you a more well rounded individual. Exposes you to ideas you wouldn't be exposed to if you stayed in Moose Junction.

 

[TennNole17]

College for the better part of the work force is a waste of money and time.

I work in middle corporate America and have coworkers with no college, accounting degrees, masters- none of which precludes them from being absolutely worthless, or useful.

Specialized skills still need training.

Getting a degree to “get a job” is nonsense.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

Aren't most of UCLA degree programs liberal arts in nature? Wouldn't most of their undergraduate degrees then be granted by liberals arts college?

Yes. That was precisely my point. I am surprised that Finance85 challenged it.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

I agree with your premise on this topic, by the way. However, I'd point out that historically, university education was reserved for people of some means. Obviously not exclusively, but when the system was educating 10% of the population that could afford to not go straight to work on the farm or in the mill, it's real easy to set aside the pathway to material wealth.

I'm jealous when I read books dealing with figures as recently as the 40s and 50s that went to college for an actual "education", learning Latin, and philosophy and literature, etc. That truly was an education.

But to also be fair, to characterize that college shouldn't just be a "pathway toward material wealth" sounds pretty good, like a lot of greedy bastards ruined it. But that's another way of saying that college should not be a tool of upward mobility either...if you are poor, don't look for college to be a means of improving your means. If you're a poor inner city kid who wants to be an accountant...going to college to get an accounting degree is actually a path to do that. Without that pathway...I don't see how that kid makes the jump, if he literally probably knows zero accountants in real life. The implied solution that we should just respect blue collar work more so nobody has to feel bad that he becomes a janitor instead of an accountant...that's a pretty bitter pill.

I think it's debatable whether college works all that great for economic mobility, or if that was the most efficient mechanism, or we ever should have positioned college as for more than the leisure classes. But that will be almost impossible to roll the clock back on and bring higher education back to being a luxury of the elites.

For most of the history of the university and academia, they were neither a luxury of the elites nor a rite of passage for the middle classes nor a tool of upward mobility among socioeconomic strata. They were where you went to be a scholar as your profession. If you wanted to work as a teacher or a researcher, then you went to the university; just as if you wanted to work as a stonemason, then you would join the mason's guild or if you wanted to be a priest, then you went to the seminary.

If an inner city kid wants to be an accountant, then his path should take him to a professional school to get trained to be an accountant. He absolutely should not go to a random college and get a liberal arts degree in English

 

[FSU_UCLA]

I've said as much already.

In an effort to retain the historical education model (even though it's broken, miserably) professors and by association their liberal arts colleges, will fail, be fired, not get tenure, etc.

This is happening. Colleges are closing. Professors are no longer being retained in many places. Colleges are hiring instructors, not faculty. Etc.

$50,000 in debt for a humanities degree is a failure. There's no two ways about it. You can't get a job and you can't get out of debt. This is all known. That you're insisting that it be spelled out (for the millionth time) shows you're just being resistant for resistance sake.

I asked you to detail your position, not because I am resistant to it, but because I could not determine what it was beyond your apparent prediction that the university system will fail.

I have seen nothing in your posts to support the assertion that the university model is broken or failing. The fact that some colleges close and that so professors do not get tenure is not new, and it no more indicates that the model is broken or failing, than Studebaker's closing 50 years ago meant that the auto industry was broken or failing.

From a purely business perspective, the university system has been and continues to be wildly successful worldwide. At UCLA, for example we broke a 100K applicants for 6k slots a few years ago, and the numbers show no signs of dropping. Millions of people want the "product" and continue to spend more and more money to obtain it. I would be willing to bet that at least the top 100 universities all have endowments in the billions of dollars.

Paying $50K for a humanities degree is indeed a failure, if the person who did that wanted to be an accountant and thought that getting a humanities degree was the way to do that. Yet, the responsibility for that failure falls on the individual for making a poor personal choice, not on the university that did exactly what it was designed to do.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

College for the better part of the work force is a waste of money and time.

I work in middle corporate America and have coworkers with no college, accounting degrees, masters- none of which precludes them from being absolutely worthless, or useful.

Specialized skills still need training.

Getting a degree to “get a job” is nonsense.

<fistbump>

 

[LesClaypool]

I asked you to detail your position, not because I am resistant to it, but because I could not determine what it was beyond your apparent prediction that the university system will fail.

I have seen nothing in your posts to support the assertion that the university model is broken or failing. The fact that some colleges close and that so professors do not get tenure is not new, and it no more indicates that the model is broken or failing, than Studebaker's closing 50 years ago meant that the auto industry was broken or failing.

From a purely business perspective, the university system has been and continues to be wildly successful worldwide. At UCLA, for example we broke a 100K applicants for 6k slots a few years ago, and the numbers show no signs of dropping. Millions of people want the "product" and continue to spend more and more money to obtain it. I would be willing to bet that at least the top 100 universities all have endowments in the billions of dollars.

Paying $50K for a humanities degree is indeed a failure, if the person who did that wanted to be an accountant and thought that getting a humanities degree was the way to do that. Yet, the responsibility for that failure falls on the individual for making a poor personal choice, not on the university that did exactly what it was designed to do.

Your poor, poor argument has beaten me into submission.

You’re right. There’s nothing wrong w/higher education in America. Carry on.

 

[funksouljon]

.....

Paying $50K for a humanities degree is indeed a failure, if the person who did that wanted to be an accountant and thought that getting a humanities degree was the way to do that. Yet, the responsibility for that failure falls on the individual for making a poor personal choice, not on the university that did exactly what it was designed to do.

There is a ton of truth in this. I still think the cost is high. And yes, people are paying, but more and more need assistance is also a sign that the cost is too high. It much be all the rich overpaid professors and administrators.

Woman I used to work with (in I.T.) had an english degree from Auburn. She said, I like writing, but then realized I needed to get a job that paid so became an requirements analyst. at least she was able to make the jump.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

You keep saying that, but most professional jobs require a college degree. That's the way it is NOW.

Even people who are in a liberal arts college, or start out in a liberal arts study program in a public university, go to college in order to get a better job. Nobody goes to college with the goal of getting a job they could get without a degree. Even police officers go to college to get a better job within law enforcement than a beginning patrol officer. Are there exceptions? OF course.

You mentioned Germany, and made an excellent point. I was there a few months ago and got to learn a lot about their educational system. Your point about valuing blue collar jobs was also excellent. That said, those in the top third go to college to prepare them for the workforce, in the role that's in line with their intellect and achievement. Doctors and lawyers still have to get an undergraduate degree, they don't go straight to medical or law school.

The fact that many employers now require a college degree is a fault with the employers, not with the universities granting the degrees.

For most of history and currently for much of the world, including Germany, the first professional degree in medicine and law is an undergraduate degree. Students go straight to medical school and law school upon completion of their secondary education.

 

[TennNole17]

You keep saying that, but most professional jobs require a college degree. That's the way it is NOW.

I would say in the past 5-10 years, I see a requirement for “degree or relevant work experience equivalent” more often than not

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

I think what a degree does is give some assurance that by making it through 4 years of college you have a certain level of intelligence, common sense, persistence, etc - skills that the employer can then use as a base for more focused professional training and development. They're not hiring you, they're hiring the "you in 3-5 years" you.

 

[Fijimn]

I prefer chasing waterfalls.

I'd stick to the rivers and lakes that you're used to..

 

[FSU_UCLA]

There is a ton of truth in this. I still think the cost is high. And yes, people are paying, but more and more need assistance is also a sign that the cost is too high. It much be all the rich overpaid professors and administrators.

Woman I used to work with (in I.T.) had an english degree from Auburn. She said, I like writing, but then realized I needed to get a job that paid so became an requirements analyst. at least she was able to make the jump.

I think we could have a very interesting discussion about why the cost of college keeps increasing dramatically, but I think that is a separate issue.

If a person thinks they need to have a thousand dollar smartphone or a $50k car to be successful or to have a certain lifestyle or level of status/prestige and he takes out a loan he can’t afford to buy those, we don’t blame Apple or BMW, and we don’t say that those companies are miserably broken for selling a product at the pricepoint they choose.

 

[BelemNole]

Pricepoint! Drink!

 

[NDallasRuss]

I think we could have a very interesting discussion about why the cost of college keeps increasing dramatically, but I think that is a separate issue.

If a person thinks they need to have a thousand dollar smartphone or a $50k car to be successful or to have a certain lifestyle or level of status/prestige and he takes out a loan he can’t afford to buy those, we don’t blame Apple or BMW, and we don’t say that those companies are miserably broken for selling a product at the pricepoint they choose.

Isn't the .com vs .edu why we don't blame Apple or BMW, but see a problem wth colleges jacking up prices?

 

[FSU_UCLA]

Isn't the .com vs .edu why we don't blame Apple or BMW, but see a problem wth colleges jacking up prices?

If it is, i.e., the price of education should be controlled by something other than market forces, then that seems to be a strong argument for devoting more tax money to higher education. UC was free to California residents for the first 100 years of its existence until Reagan decided he didn't like hippies and started cutting state funding. The increase in tuition tracks the reduction of public funding rather closely.

 

[RTM58]

Turn college funding back over to the religious institutions. They did a great job for first couple hundred years. College was basically free.

 

[Nole Lou]

I think we could have a very interesting discussion about why the cost of college keeps increasing dramatically, but I think that is a separate issue.

If a person thinks they need to have a thousand dollar smartphone or a $50k car to be successful or to have a certain lifestyle or level of status/prestige and he takes out a loan he can’t afford to buy those, we don’t blame Apple or BMW, and we don’t say that those companies are miserably broken for selling a product at the pricepoint they choose.

Not even remotely the same. NOBODY 17 years old thinks they need a $50k car to be successful. However, all 17 year olds are TOLD they need a $100k (minimum) college experience to be successful, and the colleges most definitely play a part in that. My kids have gotten like 2k pieces of mail from colleges touting themselves...most with over a $200k price tag attached.

Strangely, they've yet to get their very first letter from BMW.

It's not strictly the colleges...a cultural discussion is necessary about why we value and encourage four years at UCLA over 2 years at a community college for a certificate, but to imply the colleges themselves aren't a huge part of perpetuating that is an absurd position.

 

[SoddyNole]

I don't know about that. Despite his intelligence, ambition, and extraordinary privilege, he still died broke and miserable.

A lot of the founding fathers were in financial duress at this time. Washington and Monroe died in debt and at Hamilton's funeral they passed a hat around to collect money to bury him. Like TJ a lot of these guys spent too much on building and furnishing their large homes, enormous building projects and many had more of an inventive / entrepreneurial mind than a managerial one.

Debt became a bigger issue when the British debtors no longer accepted continental currency. Basically your money supply became worthless. Jefferson had debt passed on by his father-in-law and also cosigned a friends debt for 20,000 who died soon after. Farming was very common with the large land owners and many of they were hurt two fold during seasons with bad harvests. They lost money when they could not produce of their own crops and lost money by crediting others on farm leases. It was not uncommon for those that they were selling crops to were not not pay their debts. Selling these large tracks of land to raise cash was difficult due to how few able to purchase such large plots of land.

I would say he died with appreciation even though he was having some severe stomach issues at the time of his death and the fact that he had amassed over 100,000 in debt and did not want to pass it on. He most certainly had every reason to be miserable.

" In a letter to his grandson, reproduced in the Post, he wrote that he had no reason to complain about his money worries, “as these misfortunes have been held back for my last days, when few remain to me. I duly acknowledge that I have gone through a long life, with fewer circumstances of affliction than are the lot of most men. Uninterrupted health, [sufficient money] for every reasonable want, usefulness to my fellow-citizens, a good portion of their esteem, no complaint against the world, which has sufficiently honored me, and, above all, a family which has blessed me by their reflection, and never by their conduct given me a moment’s pain. And, should this my last request be granted, I may yet close, with a cloudless sun, a long and serene day of life.”

Each era has their set of challenges and there are always a group of unique individuals who are able to rise above them. They were uncommon in what they accomplished and the era they lived in is not the source of their achievements. There mere fact that we know more about these people than we do of our families 4 generations ago should be a telling sign of how dynamic these people were.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

Not even remotely the same. NOBODY 17 years old thinks they need a $50k car to be successful. However, all 17 year olds are TOLD they need a $100k (minimum) college experience to be successful, and the colleges most definitely play a part in that. My kids have gotten like 2k pieces of mail from colleges touting themselves...most with over a $200k price tag attached.

Strangely, they've yet to get their very first letter from BMW.

It's not strictly the colleges...a cultural discussion is necessary about why we value and encourage four years at UCLA over 2 years at a community college for a certificate, but to imply the colleges themselves aren't a huge part of perpetuating that is an absurd position.

Who is telling the 17 yos that they need a $100K college experience to be successful? I would certainly support banning colleges from direct mailing high school students, if people thought that would actually improve the situation. Yet, I just don't think that the colleges are the primary or most powerful source of that message. Personally, I believe that parents and secondary teachers are communicating that belief and creating that expectation to much a greater degree than the colleges, themselves. Again, I would support banning colleges from advertising in an effort to change the culture, but I doubt the utility of that action.

I am not certain that I see how you are ascribing the devaluation of community college to the universities, as, at least at UCLA, transferring from a community college is actively and enthusiastically encouraged. They advertise on buses around here that the acceptance rate for community college transfers is much higher than that for high school seniors.

 

[TennNole17]

I don’t think the “you need a degree to succeed” can be pinned on anyone one thing. It’s an idea, culture that has been repeated over and over and over- parents, teachers, media, news, etc. it’s just something thats regurgitated over and over, and as a side effect has made society look down on trades and trade schools, which is stupid.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

I don’t think the “you need a degree to succeed” can be pinned on anyone one thing. It’s an idea, culture that has been repeated over and over and over- parents, teachers, media, news, etc. it’s just something thats regurgitated over and over, and as a side effect has made society look down on trades and trade schools, which is stupid.

I agree. I also think it's worse than stupid: it's destructive on many levels.

 

[PoopandBoogers]

It's lazy and easy to blame and argue history, society and other human constructs. Not many argue about things we cant control. We as a species are severely conceited. What about astrophysics and black holes and complete randomness with rocks spinning out of control hitting stuff? No one blames basic elements, but they kinda piss me off. Easy for them to just do what they do, and yet we bitch about our cell batteries dying before we can typ

 

[SoddyNole]

If it is, i.e., the price of education should be controlled by something other than market forces, then that seems to be a strong argument for devoting more tax money to higher education. UC was free to California residents for the first 100 years of its existence until Reagan decided he didn't like hippies and started cutting state funding. The increase in tuition tracks the reduction of public funding rather closely.

Free tuition, free healthcare, free phones, don't we all want that shiny apple off the free tree. You are ignoring the tax payer who already put their kids through school. What is their cost in added taxes to cover some hippie getting their PHD in worthlessness? 4 years of added tuition or a lifetime in added taxes, what a bargain.

 

[Nole Lou]

Who is telling the 17 yos that they need a $100K college experience to be successful? I would certainly support banning colleges from direct mailing high school students, if people thought that would actually improve the situation. Yet, I just don't think that the colleges are the primary or most powerful source of that message. Personally, I believe that parents and secondary teachers are communicating that belief and creating that expectation to much a greater degree than the colleges, themselves. Again, I would support banning colleges from advertising in an effort to change the culture, but I doubt the utility of that action.

I am not certain that I see how you are ascribing the devaluation of community college to the universities, as, at least at UCLA, transferring from a community college is actively and enthusiastically encouraged. They advertise on buses around here that the acceptance rate for community college transfers is much higher than that for high school seniors.

I stated it wasn't all on the universities. It's broadly cultural. But while I know you are close to the university system, you haven't seen it from the parent of a prospective student side, the full assault of marketing from these schools...from direct mail to phone calls to youtube video promos to the football game promos to visits to the high schools to whip up recruits, to their rigging and marketing of the US News rankings. The idea that they're just standing idly by doing the good work, while the world around them distorts things, is totally disingenuous.

That's just not true...they are utterly relentless in marketing themselves to high school students. Ask any parent that's been through it...as relentless as anyone trying to sell anything to my kids.

The best you could say, the best, is that they oppose the current state of affairs, but because they can't change it, they're reluctantly forced to participate and so they participate enthusiastically and with extreme diligence.

But you'd think it would be very easy if Universities weren't active willing participants in the system, to stop marketing, stop issuing press releases touting record applications, etc. Don't see that happening.

Now, I totally acknowledge that the actual faculty of these universities may feel more like you do, but the people in charge are all about marketing and pushing and driving up applications, etc.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

I have seen it from pretty much all sides, Lou. As a high school student, I was the one getting the hard sell directly. (The most absurd example of this was when a rep from Ole Miss showed up at my house dressed up as Col Reb.) As an undergrad, I was the guy in the admissions office at FSU who called all the top high school kids in Florida every week and tried to seduce them into coming to FSU. As a graduate student, I recruited for the clinical psych PhD program. And now I recruit the interns and post-docs. I also spend a lot of time in therapy with kids who are being recruited and their parents. That being said, I think that we are now talking about two different things.

I think there’s a huge difference between a college touting its accomplishments and recruiting top students and the message/belief that you have to go to college to be successful. In none of my experiences with college advertising and recruitment have I seen that message coming from the university. An enthusiastic invitation is a very different thing from an existential threat.

 

[TexaNole]

I think there’s a huge difference between a college touting its accomplishments and recruiting top students and the message/belief that you have to go to college to be successful.

Indeed, institutions are comfortable spending the kinds of money they do on recruitment in part because half the work has already been done for them. The great bulk of their potential consumers have already been convinced to their bones that they need to buy some version of this product; all that remains is for them to choose a vendor.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

Free tuition, free healthcare, free phones, don't we all want that shiny apple off the free tree. You are ignoring the tax payer who already put their kids through school. What is their cost in added taxes to cover some hippie getting their PHD in worthlessness? 4 years of added tuition or a lifetime in added taxes, what a bargain.

If that is the general consensus, then we should all stop complaining about the cost of college and be eternally grateful that they don't actually charge a true market rate for tuition and fees. As you seem to oppose public higher education, do you also oppose public elementary and high school education? I am not ignoring the taxpayer; I am a taxpayer. I am the taxpayer paying a lot of money to put other people's kids through school. What is my cost in added taxes to cover some kid cheating and lying his way through high school? Whatever it is, I am happy to pay it and more, because I see a true value in treating education as necessary public good.

 

[SoddyNole]

If that is the general consensus, then we should all stop complaining about the cost of college and be eternally grateful that they don't actually charge a true market rate for tuition and fees. As you seem to oppose public higher education, do you also oppose public elementary and high school education? I am not ignoring the taxpayer; I am a taxpayer. I am the taxpayer paying a lot of money to put other people's kids through school. What is my cost in added taxes to cover some kid cheating and lying his way through high school? Whatever it is, I am happy to pay it and more, because I see a true value in treating education as necessary public good.

I see you got your PHD in straw man arguments. Happy to pay more taxes? Do you happily pay extra each year which is legal to do so. Every tax collection agency is more than willing to cash your check for "more" than you owe, since it makes you happy.....or maybe you have a degree in hypocrisy too?