Raising a University’s Ranking: Hike Tuition and Build Out

A great New York Times article from a couple months ago highlights part of the problem of enormous waste at American universities:

How to Raise a University’s Profile: Pricing and Packaging

The article profiles George Washington University in DC that used to be a safety school for children of wealthy families who could not get into Georgetown or University of Virginia (interestingly New York University is also mentioned, which used to be considered a safety school as well). By gaming the statistics of the US News and World Report rankings, GWU has now risen to number 54 in the rankings. Of course, these rankings are mostly meaningless and measure statistics blindly without analyzing the reasons behind a lower or higher stat. For example, the rate at which students graduate within four years of initial matriculation is weighed heavily as an indication of an excellent program that streamlines systemic processes with superb advising so students graduate “on time.” Institutions with lower four-year graduation rates are punished in the rankings, even though the lower rate could be an indicator of a rigorous academic program that holds students to high standards (i.e. they sometimes fail and need another year to graduate). Any institution can ensure a high four-year graduation rate by enabling students to pass all their classes and requiring they take 15 credits every semester. A diploma mill would rank extremely high in this US News & World Report category, which obviously makes no sense. Using statistics without analyzing the roots and meanings behind them is foolishness.

GWU raised its reputation by hiking tuition to one of the highest levels in the country. It’s the “Gucci” syndrome of where a product is judged superior because it has the highest price tag. And building extravagant buildings and recreation centers created an “institution on the move” facade. It worked for Gucci, and for George Washington University and New York University. They were middling safety schools in the 1980s that are now considered beacons of learning and academic prestige. This is not to say that both schools have some excellent professors and resources (as Gucci uses high quality fabrics and leather), in addition to great locations, but a good chunk of a student’s tuition goes to unnecessary pomp and circumstance. This is an irony that shouldn’t be lost on graduating students as they hear that marching tune at their graduation ceremony… your tuition also went to fund a dean of graduation and possibly a whole office dedicated to that one day.

Studying Chinese (or pretty much any language) Will Not Get You a Job

If English is your native (or near native) language, then studying another language will not do anything to help you get a job. Unfortunately many students believed the mirage of learning a language as a false gateway to riches in a distant land, and thought spending a year or two (which is really isn’t enough to learn Chinese or most languages anyway) upping their language skills would make them more marketable. In fact, it doesn’t.

U.S. students losing interest in China as dream jobs prove elusive

You will spend a year learning basic Chinese and then realize there are quite literally millions of Chinese people who not only are native speakers of Chinese, but also know English way better than your Chinese will ever hope to be (remember most of them have been studying English diligently since kindergarten). The logic of most corporations is to hire locals in China and other countries, and not import American or British expatriates who will cost more anyway. In addition, local employees in China and other countries count as diversity hires, which ticks off another box on the corporate social responsibility factoid sheets.

Don’t study a foreign language because you think it will get you a job. In fact, it won’t help you at all. And I can attest to that from personal experience as well. If you want to study a foreign language because you dream of reading Dostoyevsky in the original Russian or understand Latin American cinema without subtitles, then that’s wonderful for your personal intellectualism. But don’t study a language under the delusion that it will help you get a leg up in the job market as you’ll only be disappointed.

Are We Near The End of Today’s College and University System?

Unfortunately, the answer is no. Long story short, there are powerful, entrenched interests committed to maintaining the currently profitable structure of colleges and universities. Change will not happen until students (and parents) en masse demand accountability and results, and then stop enrolling. Joe Nocera in the New York Times makes some good points about the current problems of American (we can include global, since other countries mimic the American system to a large degree) higher education:

Joe Nocera: College for a New Age

As stated on this site previously, there are only three things that a college/university needs: great teachers, great students and great resources (labs, digital library, art supplies, etc.). The rest is superfluous, yet students pay a fortune for the tremendous waste of administrators and staff assigned to athletics, curriculum assessment, marketing, public relations, diversity, etc. Many of these separate offices and administrative functions could be greatly streamlined and reduced to a faculty service role, saving a ton of money in student tuition. Faculty governance is supposed to be the bedrock of American higher education anyway, so let’s do away with the administrators and stick them back in the classrooms (if they can teach well).

Nocera hits at the usual suspects:
1) Bloated and wasteful athletic programs that have nothing to do with the educational mission of a college/university. Replace them with intramural athletic programs that are great for students, faculty and staff to interact and exercise. There is no reason to maintain the myriad number of teams, coaches, staff, travel expenses, scholarships and facilities required for NCAA sports. Athletics is the single biggest waste of money on campus, and should be cut down to intramural programs that benefit the entire community socially and physically.
2) Universities (and colleges to a lesser degree) emphasize research over teaching, but what students really want is great teachers that inspire, educate and mentor them. Most students care little (if at all) if their professor publishes in a first-rate journal; they just want a great communicator who cares about their learning, and knows how to teach. Yet teaching is devalued by the university, and professors who concentrate on teaching are looked upon with suspicion as intellectual dilettantes who only want to be popular with students.

Where Nocera misses the plot is believing online classes and degrees will replace “real life” classes and institutions. A big part of the college experience is the social community that is formed with fellow students, and sometimes professors. It’s just not the same sitting at home behind a computer to get this invaluable experience and contacts. Steve Ballmer became President of Microsoft by hanging out with Bill Gates at Harvard playing poker late at night. Unless telepresence makes huge technological breakthroughs in the near future, these kinds of friendships and networks just won’t form in online classes. Colleges and universities are about more than hitting the books. Friendships, experiences and interests are made that can last a lifetime. Learning face-to-face with peers and professors is a more effective learning environment than posting comments in a discussion board and reading assigned texts alone. The virtual cannot replace the real in education.

As for those powerful, entrenched interests preventing any meaningful change in higher education, that will be the subject of another post…

Do Not Dilute Standards for “Diversity” at New York City High Schools

The best public high schools in New York City (Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech) have one of the most most egalitarian and meritocratic admissions systems in the United States. There is a test for admission, and only the students with the highest scores are admitted. Nothing else matters. This is how it is done in many of the world’s schools, particularly in Asia, but, unfortunately, not in the US, where diversity seen by some as a great value even though one is born into a “diversity class” and cannot achieve or change this status. Every year when the statistics come out for next year’s freshman classes at these high schools, it shows little, if any, increase in the number of students who self-identify as Hispanic and African-American:

Lack of Diversity Persists in Admissions to New York City’s Elite High Schools

In the article, at least, no one is saying the test is biased against certain socially constructed backgrounds. The test itself is the same stringency for all its takers. The only advantage examinees can acquire is to take (and take to heart through hard study) prep classes geared to doing well on the exam. If you don’t study hard, then you don’t do well on the exam. Nothing else is taken into consideration, including legacy admissions that unfairly favor the children of alumni. It is very rare in the US for an institution to maintain such high standards without eventually submitting to political pressure to lower standards to achieve a socially desirable end. It is hoped that the New York State legislature does not water down the exam or entry standards for these meritocratic and superb high schools. This is one time when the dysfunctional nature of Albany legislative politics bodes well for nothing being done, which is the best possible outcome.

Most Private Colleges and Universities Not Worth the Cost

Another private college closing soon in the US:

Sweet Briar College to Close

With tuition approaching $35,000 plus another $12,000 for room and board, the cost versus benefits of a private college/university (that is not an Ivy) is just not worth it. Yes, many of these private institutions offer 50% “scholarships” to almost every student in a somewhat dishonest marketing ploy to attract students who feel proud to receive a “scholarship,” but even that is no longer enough to attract potential students in such a tough job market. In other words, $17,000 tuition plus $12,000 for room and board is still a lot of money. That’s about $30,000 per year (not including all the other ancillary expenses of life) over four (maybe five) years to get “credentialed” in a starting job that pays on average $40,000 per year with long hours and little job security. And, of course, many graduates cannot find any salaried jobs at all, and taking hourly wage work that they didn’t really need a higher education degree for in the first place. It’s finally coming to the point that young people and their parents are asking the question: “Is the high expense worth the cost?” Short answer: In most cases, it’s not.

Unless you’re going to an Ivy League or a Stanford, MIT, Chicago, and perhaps a few other truly elite private institutions, the so-called prestige of a private university degree is just not worth it. Small liberal arts colleges like Oberlin, Swarthmore, Williams, etc. are indeed excellent higher education institutions that are committed to teaching (which is what most undergraduates care about most: great teachers) but most employers and the general public have little clue about these schools. They might as well be Sweet Briar College or some other small failing institution in the minds of most people, and they have little prestige outside the rarefied air of people who read the New Yorker and Atlantic magazines. Yes, you do receive a great education there, but don’t kid yourself that the “prestige” of the name is going to be some magic ticket to a great job after you graduate. It’s not.

Receiving a great education can’t be said for the myriad other small colleges that dot the country with little to justify their high price tag. In the New York City area, there are around a dozen small Catholic affiliated colleges that charge high tuition but have no prestige (ignore the phony public relations spiel they print in glossy brochures and websites) and nothing to differentiate themselves to justify the cost. Students of middling means would be better offer in almost every case going to City University of New York or State University of New York, and actually get a better education (the public institutions attract much better faculty with higher pay, excellent benefits and pensions) while saving a ton of money. It is completely irrational to go to these small colleges when there is a clearly superior, inexpensive alternative available, unless one has wealthy parents footing the bill or you don’t mind taking out huge loans (just don’t complain later when you have to pay them back). Don’t get lured into the false prestige game as aprivate college degree is not going to give you a leg up in the job hunt when compared to your public college competition.

Remember that a great school requires three things: great teachers, great students and great educational resources (labs, art materials, library, etc.). That’s what you should look for when choosing a school. The rest of it is fluff, but you pay a high price for the fluff and that will be the topic of a future post.

Criminal Culpability in Urging Someone to Commit Suicide

A teenage girl has been criminally charged with encouraging her “friend” to commit suicide:

Teen Charged with Allegedly Urging a Friend to Kill Himself

Seeing the photos of the two friends, I assumed (before reading the article), that the boy egged on the girl to kill herself. Actually, it was the other way around, and the girl allegedly urged the boy to commit suicide (seemingly by carbon monoxide poisoning). As the article notes, she was an honor student, as if that would normally qualify her for good behavior awards. She was charged with involuntary manslaughter and faces significant time behind bars if convicted after not only egging him on to “do it” but also for sickeningly decrying on her social media accounts that his suicide was such a terrible tragedy. No doubt, if the story is accurate, that she’s an awful person with a lack of empathy but a dollop of solipsism that mark her as a potential sociopath.

But should her behavior be illegal and punishable by law? Many people do heinous things to others including lying, cheating, teasing, belittling, etc. but they don’t get arrested. Should make we illegal all this boorish behavior? Should someone be held culpable for someone’s suicide when suicide itself is, by definition, a solitary act? What about when someone commits suicide after a romance unravels? Or after a friend betrays a friend’s secrets to others? It is reminiscent of revenge porn, where a boorish and tacky act is increasingly outlawed by criminal law (when this type of behavior would previously have fallen under civil law). If we are going to be held responsible for every single word we say or publish, then we are all going to be held to a very high standard for our own words, all the time. And if we hold young people, who are not the most rational or filtered before communicating, then almost everyone growing up today will be guilty of some kind of “thought-to-speech crime.” What we need is not more laws criminalizing behavior (even if it is repugnant) that results in individuals (or his/her families) running to the state to solve every problem and issue they face, but an emphasis on developing and maintaining a resolute stance when faced with a nasty jerk. When you commit suicide, you allow the bastard who egged you on to feel victory. Don’t succumb and let the bastard win, fight back and persevere while standing on your own as a resolute individual. Don’t get mad, don’t get sad, get even.