Obsession over grades is killing American Education

[folkhero]

Knowing your subject well however, the importance of that can hardly be overstated. It doesn't matter how good your study material is, books can never replace teachers. Because books can not possibly answer all the questions students may have. Nor can they explain the same subject in 10 different ways, so that everybody will get it. The direct interaction between student and teacher is very important when explaining stuff. You can use questions to see what part a student doesn't get, why he doesn't get it, and then explain it in such a way that he will understand it.

One of my favorite teachers taught physics even though he was mainly a math teacher. He didn't know the subject very well, so when one of us asked him something he didn't know, he would say, "let's find out." Then we would do an experiment, or if that was impractical we would research it together to figure it out. It was pretty empowering because the teacher/student dynamic dissolved during those moments and we were just a group of curious people trying to figure something out. Now, I don't know if that would work for all classes and all levels of students (it was an AP class at a pretty good school with a lot of flexibility in the curriculum) but having a teacher that isn't an expert on a subject doesn't mean that the teacher can't do an excellent job teaching.

[LaserGuy]

Knowing your subject well however, the importance of that can hardly be overstated. It doesn't matter how good your study material is, books can never replace teachers. Because books can not possibly answer all the questions students may have. Nor can they explain the same subject in 10 different ways, so that everybody will get it. The direct interaction between student and teacher is very important when explaining stuff. You can use questions to see what part a student doesn't get, why he doesn't get it, and then explain it in such a way that he will understand it.

Have to agree with the others. This has a lot more to do with knowing how to teach than knowing the material. I've had physics professors teaching their area of expertise who had a hard time explaining things to students who had trouble with a concept. I didn't have anything to do with their grasp of the subject material. They just didn't know how to teach. Universities are pretty terrible about this, actually, in that they often assume that just because you have a Ph.D automatically means that you will be good at teaching your subject matter.

[Izawwlgood]

Universities are pretty terrible about this, actually, in that they often assume that just because you have a Ph.D automatically means that you will be good at teaching your subject matter.

While I absolutely agree that this is a problem, I want to point out that often times professors teaching advanced courses are teaching them because someone without a PhD isn't qualified to teach it. My Mechanisms of Cell Bio class could not have been taught by someone who didn't have years of experience doing research. Obviously this doesn't apply to, say, a PhD teaching intro bio lecture.

[addams]

What you can do is test in creative ways. The test questions should be structured around solving a problem or applying a principle; and should be lengthy enough to cover alot of the topic.

The structure of the test should also adhere to what is generally used by that field. That way, even if the test forces the student to learn the structure of the test, that is STILL a useful skill: being able to communicate in the accepted style of professionals of a field.

Here's how I would envision an ideal science test:
2 parts, each 3-6 hours long, but students are not expected to take the entire time to answer the questions. More than enough time should be allocated for the students to derive much of the equations or principles from basic knowledge if so required. Time pressure is not often met in the field and thus should not be tested.
1st part is a practical exam. The students are given a question, and asked to answer it and provide experimental data to back up their answer. The question should not give any information beyond the absolute minimum for communicating the question; and the question itself should not have an obvious answer.
(eg. Physics: Determine the refractive index, specific heat capacity and moment of inertia of the block of glass provided. Also indicate on a diagram the position of its center of gravity. You may assume the block is made of a uniform material. )
(eg. Chemistry: The mixture provided contains salicylic acid and a metal. Identify the metal contaminant (and its oxidation state) in the mixture. Use the mixture and the acetic anhydride to produce aspirin - acetylsalicylic acid - and purify it in a crystal form. )
- some simple to precipitate metal is used, like lead or calcium. Sodium is going to be a bad choice, obviously.
The student is given access to a high school laboratory with equipment necessary to perform any experiment taught on the syllabus. The student is required to invent his own series of experiments as well as record his experimental setup and results in a lab notebook.

2nd part is a paper test. The students are given a set of data as well as the experimental setup and the question the experimenter was trying to answer. This data is generated by an actual run of the test described. Students are expected to write an experimental report based on that data, as if writing a short article to be published. (-introduction section should be given as part of the test-; the students write Materials/Method, Results and Discussion)

I could not pass that test with out a serious cram session. Or; Someone teaching me to the test.
The first time I read the description I had a fear reaction. That would be one hard test.
Two weeks. Two weeks of cramming or being taught to the test. Hey! For me it might be a trip in Mr. Peabody's way back machine. Some of that I never knew.
Now I feel all inadequate. Well? Someone has to fail.

[jseah]

I could not pass that test with out a serious cram session. Or; Someone teaching me to the test.
The first time I read the description I had a fear reaction. That would be one hard test.
Two weeks. Two weeks of cramming or being taught to the test. Hey! For me it might be a trip in Mr. Peabody's way back machine. Some of that I never knew.
Now I feel all inadequate. Well? Someone has to fail.

You'd be surprised. These tests can actually be too simple if the question is something easy (and hence that has to be avoided), and for all of the science tests, application of the scientific method should be sufficient for passing (student acheived at least part of the answer)
The physics one can be done in a few hours by a student who is familiar with all parts of the syllabus. While those who don't know everything might need to derive some basic formulae (I would need to work out the formulae for moment of inertia again)

Perhaps a little of the specialist knowledge can be given (eg. structure of salicylic acid in the chemistry example) to alleviate the impact of missing critical pieces of information.

A little drop of creativity and problem solving will help immensely, but those skills are relevant. Differentiating those students who memorize from those who can problem solve is a requirement in the sciences (and mathematics).

[Jahoclave]

Universities are pretty terrible about this, actually, in that they often assume that just because you have a Ph.D automatically means that you will be good at teaching your subject matter.

While I absolutely agree that this is a problem, I want to point out that often times professors teaching advanced courses are teaching them because someone without a PhD isn't qualified to teach it. My Mechanisms of Cell Bio class could not have been taught by someone who didn't have years of experience doing research. Obviously this doesn't apply to, say, a PhD teaching intro bio lecture.

I would also point out that universities do give a shit about ability to teach and it is a part of tenure and salary raises and the like. It is also a large part of the hiring process.

[Griffin]

I wouldn't say that's ALWAYS true - teaching well is certainly valued, but other things are ALSO valued and you can be a successful professor and a terrible teacher at the same time. Especially if you're only terrible for undergrads since no one really cares about them anyway.

[DaBigCheez]

I wouldn't say that's ALWAYS true - teaching well is certainly valued, but other things are ALSO valued and you can be a successful professor and a terrible teacher at the same time. Especially if you're only terrible for undergrads since no one really cares about them anyway.

Hence why I'm very glad that I went to an undergrad-only institution - it meant the professors were there primarily to teach.

[pizzazz]

What you can do is test in creative ways. The test questions should be structured around solving a problem or applying a principle; and should be lengthy enough to cover alot of the topic.

The structure of the test should also adhere to what is generally used by that field. That way, even if the test forces the student to learn the structure of the test, that is STILL a useful skill: being able to communicate in the accepted style of professionals of a field.

Here's how I would envision an ideal science test:
2 parts, each 3-6 hours long, but students are not expected to take the entire time to answer the questions. More than enough time should be allocated for the students to derive much of the equations or principles from basic knowledge if so required. Time pressure is not often met in the field and thus should not be tested.
1st part is a practical exam. The students are given a question, and asked to answer it and provide experimental data to back up their answer. The question should not give any information beyond the absolute minimum for communicating the question; and the question itself should not have an obvious answer.
2nd part is a paper test. The students are given a set of data as well as the experimental setup and the question the experimenter was trying to answer. This data is generated by an actual run of the test described. Students are expected to write an experimental report based on that data, as if writing a short article to be published. (-introduction section should be given as part of the test-; the students write Materials/Method, Results and Discussion)

This is actually a really good idea. Only problem is, most physics teachers (at least in American high schools) would have not a damn clue how to even begin to put such a test together, let alone grade it.

Particularly in regards to math and science, I increasingly dislike short timed tests altogether (< half a day). It seems wholly disconnected from anything you will ever do that you cannot look things up unless you are doing on the fly estimates. It also seems very unlikely that any problems worth solving can actually be done in such a short time frame and without cooperation. Rather than having 50 minutes to scrawl out sketches of 5 separate proofs, I'd much rather take a half a day to collaborate on a truly interesting problem. The only thing I can see such tests useful for is for practicing basic skills.

Humanities classes have fewer tests in my experience.

A big exception, where short timed tests are probably a good idea, is foreign language. There it makes sense to practice memorization, quick recall, and not having resources or time.

[Angua]

The medical department at my university makes us fill out feedback forms on the course at the end of every term (this year, because I was only have 3 lectures and a seminar per week we had to fill out something for each lecturer on the form) as well as hounding the colleges to send a representative to their in-person feedback sessions (they actually sent an email to the 5 of us saying that they knew none of us and signed up to go and tempted us with a free lunch), and my college obsesses over the online academic feedback forms for in-house tutorials.

I get the impression they care rather a lot about the teaching of undergraduates, and seeing what we think about the teaching capabilities of our tutors/lecturers.

[Griffin]

Again, they probably do! But a lot of that varies by college within the university, by the class that's actually being taught, by whether or not the teacher is also a researcher capable of pulling in grants and prestige. Most every university will have some group of people dedicated to improving the quality of the University teaching - but their weight, their pull, varies and there are ultimately plenty of other factors that play a role as well.

Like I said, its not that good teaching isn't valued - at most places, it definitely is! But its not the only thing that's valued. (And once you're tenured, well...)

[Tiberius]

Did anyone bother to take the time and question whether our education system is really in trouble or underperforming? Virtually every piece of data that I have seen that supports the notion that we are falling behind is based on really sketchy samples and just all around bad statistics. Systems like that of Taiwan and China and several European countries where the school system is bifurcated will always lead to higher test scores. If you only tested AP students in the US rather than everyone then I bet the average test scores would go up. Furthermore we are one of the only countries in the world with a public school system that does as good a job if not better than our private school system, when you correct for demographics.

I think what most of the complaining in this thread has been caused by people who want something out of the system that it is not designed to do. Primary and secondary education is designed to: prepare non-college bound students for the workforce, and prepare people that are going to college with the basic knowledge and tools required to do well in college. I came in with 16 credit hours of AP coursework and 8 more that I had to retake at college due to the physics departments policies. I can say with certainty that none of the AP courses I took could compare to the actual classes that they were supposedly able to replace. What they lacked in actual content they more than made up for in preparation to take college classes. My senior and junior year of high school i was learning how to play the game that is post-secondary academia. That includes teaching to the test and studying a test. Because, let's face it, it is all a game. You can either know how to play to win while staying within the rules or you can go through college with a lot more stress, work, and a lot lower GPA.

So is "teaching to the test" an unideal model of pedagogy that Socrates would shudder at? FUCK YES! But the rest of the world is no different, and as I have already stated. High school is meant to prepare you for whats next. It may not be pretty but it's effective. Once you get into your 2nd 3rd and 4th years of college you can start taking classes with all that sweet Socratic dialectic that you want so badly.
Besides kids in high school are far too stupid to actually appreciate any enlightened educational dialog.

[pizzazz]

Did anyone bother to take the time and question whether our education system is really in trouble or underperforming? Virtually every piece of data that I have seen that supports the notion that we are falling behind is based on really sketchy samples and just all around bad statistics. Systems like that of Taiwan and China and several European countries where the school system is bifurcated will always lead to higher test scores. If you only tested AP students in the US rather than everyone then I bet the average test scores would go up. Furthermore we are one of the only countries in the world with a public school system that does as good a job if not better than our private school system, when you correct for demographics.

I don't have the data at hand, but as I recall there were a few major pieces of evidence.
High and increasing dropout rates.
Decreasing employment opportunity for high school students.
Overall, performance on international tests similar to developing countries rather than developed countries.
Steady decline in SAT scores despite the tests becoming easier.

I think what most of the complaining in this thread has been caused by people who want something out of the system that it is not designed to do. Primary and secondary education is designed to: prepare non-college bound students for the workforce, and prepare people that are going to college with the basic knowledge and tools required to do well in college.

Except, in America at least, basically no public high school has any program built for non-college-bound students. There's this fucked-up belief that everyone must go to college, and it has hurt the system a lot by forcing people to be there would much rather (and probably be better off, given how terrible the schools are) be working.

[Griffin]

My (American) high school actually was two-track, and had a great vocational program.

I was actually incredibly jealous of the vocational students going through, getting to do do awesome shit while I was stuck pretending (poorly) to pay attention to lectures about useless trivia. Or sleeping... I did sleep through a number of classes...

[Dark567]

I don't have the data at hand, but as I recall there were a few major pieces of evidence.
High and increasing dropout rates.

This simply isn't true. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012006.pdf

Decreasing employment opportunity for high school students.

The US isn't particularly bad here compared to other countries, but not particularly good either. Employment everywhere in the developed world though has been falling, I don't think you can say the US stands out that way or that this is directly the education systems fault.

Overall, performance on international tests similar to developing countries rather than developed countries.
Steady decline in SAT scores despite the tests becoming easier.

In many developing countries large swaths of children don't go to school at all and don't get tested so there is a selection bias. Besides most studies show the US's education as an average developed country.

Spoiler:

The SAT in the 70's decided to renormalize their scores to make 500 every 5 years or so. Every time they have renormalized the score, they have normalized it downward making it harder to get as high of a score. This means we are getting smarter, not dumber.

[Izawwlgood]

My (American) high school actually was two-track, and had a great vocational program.

I was actually incredibly jealous of the vocational students going through, getting to do do awesome shit while I was stuck pretending (poorly) to pay attention to lectures about useless trivia. Or sleeping... I did sleep through a number of classes...

Firstly, I'd suggest to you that students sleeping through class may hinder their ability to perform. Being on the otherside of education this last year has shown me how few of those kids asleep in classes are doing it because they're acing the exams and know all the material.

Secondly, while I think vocational programs are a great idea, and America needs a greater acceptance of them in general, I'd also suggest that locking kids into vocational programs in high school is perhaps too early, as their ability to make decisions about their life direction when they're 13-14 is probably not so great. That said, because of the absurd failing of American high schools in general, maybe we need a shift towards something more hands on or practical programs.

[Griffin]

Actually, the voc kids weren't really "locked in" - you could still take the college prep courses as a voc student, it just meant you could take the voc courses TOO.

It was the college bound kids that were locked in, really. Although I'm not sure if the Voc kids could take the actual college classes on offer (so awesome) or the AP classes, I do believe at least a few of them from my graduating class went on to college anyway.

I do wonder why more high schools don't allow their students to take college courses, that was a great experience for me.

Firstly, I'd suggest to you that students sleeping through class may hinder their ability to perform. Being on the otherside of education this last year has shown me how few of those kids asleep in classes are doing it because they're acing the exams and know all the material.

Oh trust me, I was not sleeping because I was acing the exams and knew all the material. I was sleeping because I was dead tired, the classes were boring, and the sound of teachers lecturing is like a sweet lullaby to my ears. This extended well into University, to the point where I can only remember a couple minutes from one of the classes taught by one my favorite teachers, because the moment he opened his mouth I was out like a light.

The fact that I knew the material and aced the test was in in spite of this. Overall, not handing in homework would hurt me more, though, only saved by having my name latter in the alphabet giving me time to do a good deal of it before the person collecting papers got to me. (You'd be surprised at the number of students who actually do their homework and then don't hand it in. I usually went about half that, half not doing it at all. I hated handing it in even more than I hated doing it.)

[Izawwlgood]

It was the college bound kids that were locked in, really.

I think it absolutely bears investigating then, what the comparative average income/job placement of the two programs was. I'm not sure how to adjust for other mitigating factors, but it might be worth checking into. I wager, for example, that the last 5-6 years have been easier on vocational school trained individuals than liberal arts college degree holders, but that's just a guess.

The fact that I knew the material and aced the test was in in spite of this.

I'm not sure what your point is around this topic then; certainly some students will work their assess off/be so naturally gifted and brilliant, and/that despite sleeping through classes, still ace everything. That is not the norm, nor is it really indicative of anything save they didn't know how to/want to push themselves into actually challenging material.

For the class I'm presently TAing, there's a kid who sleeps every class. Literally walks in, rolls his jacket up, and sleeps until the end of lecture. His average is a 90. There's another kid who finishes every exam within 5-8m of the start. As in, I'm still passing out exams when he's done. His average is also ~90. These kids aren't the norm, and they aren't indicative of a failing of the professor/class/system. What *IS* indicative of failure is that the class average is ~50-55, and that the class isn't a 'weed out' course, but an introductory requirement.

So this is all kind of a tangent, so, sorry.

[Zamfir]

I wager, for example, that the last 5-6 years have been easier on vocational school trained individuals than liberal arts college degree holders, but that's just a guess.

With these kinds of things you really need to look longer term. if you're fairly bright, and have a vocational training, you can often make quite a bit of money in the short run, even while your age peers are still in school. But in the longer run, it tends to limit the options for advancement, a lot. The higher up you get, the more important it becomes to share the social subtleties of the people around you. College is to a large extent an intro-course in the social world of the professional classes that tend to run the modern world.

That makes me very hesitant to advice vocational training to kids, if they can get to more academic schools. Especially if they're not from a highly educated socail background themselves, which is often the case with kids who are tempted to go take a more vocational than academic path.

[Izawwlgood]

I think actually it was shown that the debt accrued in college, coupled with the time lost climbing a professional ladder, average out to being only marginally (5-8% I think?) better off by the time you're 50, compared to someone who entered the work force directly after high school. I can't find the article now, but a variety of studies will show that the earning gap isn't as significant as we thought.

[Griffin]

The sleeping things was just an offhand comment about what I did while busy being jealous of of the voc students who got to work with computers and engines and heavy machine and wood and stuff.

I absolutely detested my classes, and probably would have gone the vocational route if I'd ever actually been given a choice, but I was never even offered the option.

I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, ultimately. I don't know how the split was actually decided.

I'm just generally a supporter of voc classes, and think my school did them really well. They even had their own dedicated building. If your voc program is good enough the college-bound students are often jealous of their vocational peers, you're probably doing something right.

Zamfir,
Damn it, I knew I missed something while going through University. That was it! 6 years, and I never picked up on any of those damned social subtleties...

[Dark567]

I think actually it was shown that the debt accrued in college, coupled with the time lost climbing a professional ladder, average out to being only marginally (5-8% I think?) better off by the time you're 50, compared to someone who entered the work force directly after high school. I can't find the article now, but a variety of studies will show that the earning gap isn't as significant as we thought.

The thing that bothers me about an analysis like this, is that its just comparing college versus high school, without considering what your college degree is in. There is significant differences in earnings based on degree with some having incomes far past the marginal 5-8% and others that have a negative expected value over the time you are likely to be in the workforce.

[Izawwlgood]

Yes, it is averaging college graduates to high school graduates. That is precisely the point; there's a myth in America right now that college = big earnings, full stop.

[Dark567]

That is precisely the point; there's a myth in America right now that college = big earnings, full stop.

I guess... But I never remember hearing that growing up, and when in school I often heard my English major friends say things like "I may not be able to get a job, but at least I am doing something that I love". They seemed to have some firm idea that a degree in English wasn't going to lead to large earnings.

[morriswalters]

I wager, for example, that the last 5-6 years have been easier on vocational school trained individuals than liberal arts college degree holders, but that's just a guess.

With these kinds of things you really need to look longer term. if you're fairly bright, and have a vocational training, you can often make quite a bit of money in the short run, even while your age peers are still in school. But in the longer run, it tends to limit the options for advancement, a lot. The higher up you get, the more important it becomes to share the social subtleties of the people around you. College is to a large extent an intro-course in the social world of the professional classes that tend to run the modern world.

That makes me very hesitant to advice vocational training to kids, if they can get to more academic schools. Especially if they're not from a highly educated socail background themselves, which is often the case with kids who are tempted to go take a more vocational than academic path.

This smacks just a little of elitism. I could go on about how the world needs more vocational training, and about how not every person is suited for college. However instead I will point out that while what you say is true on any number of levels it also points to a problem that rears it's ugly head quite a bit. The tendency to look down your nose at others who may not have the desire to achieve quite as highly as their peers, for whatever reason.

[bentheimmigrant]

That's because the world is elitist.

[Izawwlgood]

I think the real problem is your idea that going to college is inherently more of an accomplishment than, say, holding a successful job and supporting yourself and/or a family.

That is precisely the point; there's a myth in America right now that college = big earnings, full stop.

I guess... But I never remember hearing that growing up, and when in school I often heard my English major friends say things like "I may not be able to get a job, but at least I am doing something that I love". They seemed to have some firm idea that a degree in English wasn't going to lead to large earnings.

Whereas today I think many English graduates aren't even under the assumption that they'll 'do anything' with their degree. The emphasis is so strongly on getting to college that thinking past that hasn't even occurred to most students.

[Dark567]

Actually on the vocational stuff, Chicago last month announced programs to allow students to do vocational programs in technology and internships with big tech companies attempting a slightly new education model:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 76902.html
http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/ci ... anies.html

Whereas today I think many English graduates aren't even under the assumption that they'll 'do anything' with their degree. The emphasis is so strongly on getting to college that thinking past that hasn't even occurred to most students

Really, people don't ask their kids what they want to be when they grow up? I don't think the answer is typically "go to college". Yeah, I guess a lot of people don't have their plans laid out, but I don't think people just plainly don't think about life after school either.

[Izawwlgood]

Huh? People ask their kids that all the time, but unless you've been living under a rock these last 15 or so years, the general vibe in American education is 'the way to success is to go to college'. while this certainly translates to studying the thing you want to do in college, it also means many people probably didn't really think that far, and simply went to college under the false assumption that it would in and of itself lead to success.

[Dauric]

Whereas today I think many English graduates aren't even under the assumption that they'll 'do anything' with their degree. The emphasis is so strongly on getting to college that thinking past that hasn't even occurred to most students

Really, people don't ask their kids what they want to be when they grow up? I don't think the answer is typically "go to college". Yeah, I guess a lot of people don't have their plans laid out, but I don't think people just plainly don't think about life after school either.

Problem is that college has become "that thing you do after high-school" like "High school is that thing you do after Junior High" and "Junior High is that thing you do after Elementary school", "elementary school...pre-school", etc. etc. etc. It's not really presented as a choice -to be made by the student- between going in to a trade/vocation or going in to college, but rather "What college are you going to go to?" With the rise of the for-profit colleges there's more opportunities to go to college, so the assumption gets reinforced that it's something expected of a HS graduate.

[Dark567]

"What college are you going to go to?" With the rise of the for-profit colleges there's more opportunities to go to college, so the assumption gets reinforced that it's something expected of a HS graduate.

Hmmm. Maybe its just the fact most my friends didn't go to college or the area I grew up in that I didn't see this.

[Garm]

We need a reform of our education system at all levels. We need to push more people toward community colleges or advanced vocational schools. We need to get rid of charter schools and for-profit schools (sorry Libertarians). We need to inform kids about their choices and start breaking down the myth of the college experience (which is largely meant to appeal to young men at this point. Easy access to booze and women isn't what college is about).

Here's an article that discusses how expensive it is NOT to go to college (answer: seems to be very expensive): http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/whats-more-expensive-than-college-not-going-to-college/255073/

[Izawwlgood]

We need to get rid of charter schools and for-profit schools (sorry Libertarians)

Not going to happen. There's nothing wrong with for-profit schools, there's only something wrong with a lack of viable alternatives.

(which is largely meant to appeal to young men at this point.

Uh, citation needed? Last I checked, plenty of women had fun at college too.

(answer: seems to be very expensive)

There is such a glut of conflicting evidence to that claim.

[induction]

Problem is that college has become "that thing you do after high-school" like "High school is that thing you do after Junior High" and "Junior High is that thing you do after Elementary school", "elementary school...pre-school", etc. etc. etc. It's not really presented as a choice -to be made by the student- between going in to a trade/vocation or going in to college, but rather "What college are you going to go to?" With the rise of the for-profit colleges there's more opportunities to go to college, so the assumption gets reinforced that it's something expected of a HS graduate.

It's also an extremely effective way of postponing the difficult questions 'What am I going to do with my life?' and 'How am I going to support myself?' while maintaining the illusion of progress. You have a goal that you are working towards (graduation), so you get to feel that you are solving those problems without actually having to think about them.

Some people do think about what they are going to do after college, but many people don't and the question is often not built in to (or even acknowledged by) the college curriculum. Though if you do well enough as an undergrad, you can continue to postpone the question by going to grad school.

[Lucrece]

Good luck getting into some industries without even a BA as a minimum. I've read job posting for shitty manage ment positions requiring such a degree when they're paying 30k a year.

Hell, more profitable industries like healthcare requires at least 2-3 years of technical training for the 50k+ a year jobs. A HS degree by itself will blackball you from most high paying jobs unless you got connections or an entrepeneur's spirit.

[Dauric]

(answer: seems to be very expensive)

There is such a glut of conflicting evidence to that claim.

Both articles are measuring two different things. The one Garm is referencing measures the "Cost to society" of not having an accessible higher-education system. Izawlgood is looking at cost to the individual student.

The problem with for-profits isn't the concept, but the execution. Left to their own devices they tend towards shady business practices and promising outcomes to prospective customers that are patently unpromisable. A number of states and accreditation boards have been taking a harder look at the for-profits so we may see some changes in the future of the for-profits.

Frontline: College Inc.

Some people do think about what they are going to do after college, but many people don't and the question is often not built in to (or even acknowledged by) the college curriculum.

I'd say that with the exception of vocational programs* the question isn't even built in to High-School curricula.

*And even then it depends on the quality of the vocational program. My HS had "Shop" class, and "Electronics" class as "vocational" classes that were essentially "Intro to woodworking" and "Intro to a job that has already been taken over by robots in factories, but these breadboard kits are fun aren't they?". IIRC they were -just- enough to qualify the district for certain state funding bonuses, but weren't actually about getting a job after HS.

[Garm]

For-profit schools don't graduate students at an acceptable rate. By and large they are predatory institutions that essentially scam people out of their money without delivering on their promise of an education.

http://www.military.com/news/article/critics-slam-predatory-for-profit-schools.html
http://campusprogress.org/campaigns/issues/screw_u_for-profit_colleges_scamming_students_and_taxpayers_out_of_the/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/for-profit-colleges-unemployment-debt_n_1182164.html
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/4-year-students-at-for-profit-colleges-graduate-less-than-half-as-often-as-other-students-but-their-schools-do-create-jobs-for-lobbyists/

Women outnumber men in colleges now. Largely because they see it as a way to close the income gap. Unfortunately I can't find any sources more recent than 2006 so if someone's google-fu is better it'd be nice to look at some numbers of college educated women vs. men in terms of earnings. So the rest of this is largely just off the cuff, you'll have to forgive me. What I remember is that women who graduate from college earn almost the same (if not the same) as men who graduate with the same degree. Women who do not go to college, however, earn quite a bit less than a man in a similar situation. So the primary driver behind encouraging women to pursue post-secondary education is economic (or fiscal, whatever). I think that remains the primary driver for men as well but there's also the considerable momentum of "girls, bros, and beer." Since we have serious hangups about sex in the U.S. easy access to beer and dudes isn't really a narrative that's spun for women to go to college. I think there's still an expectation, fading fast it seems, that women are there to get their Mrs. degree.

Sure there's plenty of evidence that getting a degree from a traditional 4 year college isn't the best idea. Great. You know what's even more expensive? Becoming a doctor. Does that obviate the need for looking at what happens when you don't get a degree? Not really, which is why I posted the article. There's nothing about the article you posted that contradicts the Atlantic article. Yes it's expensive to get that BA. It's also expensive not to get one. What's the expense of a community college degree? What about going to community college for two years and then transferring to your state school? All very interesting questions that ought to be looked at.

[Zamfir]

Some people do think about what they are going to do after college, but many people don't and the question is often not built in to (or even acknowledged by) the college curriculum.

You can easily not go to college, and also not make plans for the future. Dead-end jobs don't have that question built in either.

the considerable momentum of "girls, bros, and beer."

I don't really see the problem there. If we can give people some years of fun, and they don't even end up considerably worse off as result, than that's surely a good thing?

[kiklion]

Problem is that college has become "that thing you do after high-school" like "High school is that thing you do after Junior High" and "Junior High is that thing you do after Elementary school", "elementary school...pre-school", etc. etc. etc. It's not really presented as a choice -to be made by the student- between going in to a trade/vocation or going in to college, but rather "What college are you going to go to?" With the rise of the for-profit colleges there's more opportunities to go to college, so the assumption gets reinforced that it's something expected of a HS graduate.

It's also an extremely effective way of postponing the difficult questions 'What am I going to do with my life?' and 'How am I going to support myself?' while maintaining the illusion of progress. You have a goal that you are working towards (graduation), so you get to feel that you are solving those problems without actually having to think about them.

Some people do think about what they are going to do after college, but many people don't and the question is often not built in to (or even acknowledged by) the college curriculum. Though if you do well enough as an undergrad, you can continue to postpone the question by going to grad school.

I believe we measure effectiveness differently. I believe delaying college to be an effective way of postponing the difficult questions. You could work and easily make $25k a year, saving for when you know what you want to go to college. Rather than starting college right away and paying that tuition without getting full benefit as your college life is extended due to not deciding on a major right away. (Credits that don't transfer, not starting physics until Junior year because you did't know you wanted to go that route, and having 3 semesters of physics left for your major, just to have the course be spring only, etc)

[Dark567]

For-profit schools don't graduate students at an acceptable rate. By and large they are predatory institutions that essentially scam people out of their money without delivering on their promise of an education.

Although true with colleges, that hardly is damning against charter schools, or lower level education enterprises. I have heard very good things about Sylvan as an example.

Yes it's expensive to get that BA. It's also expensive not to get one.

Again, the point where these analyses fail is they don't take into they type of degree, not all BA's are equal. There are plenty of BA's that are expensive to get, but not expensive at all not to get one. They have a negative expected return.