Posted on 06/18/2011 6:17:16 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
A San Francisco State University instructor writes in Poynter today that the media is misrepresenting some basic features of the debate over the value of a college education. In reviewing recent coverage, Sarah Fidelibus argues that journalists are taking surveys out of context in making the case that a college education isn't worth young people's time and money anymore. The critique comes on the heels of a piece in the New Republic titled "Why the media is always wrong about the value of a college degree."
In the latter article, Education Sector's Kevin Carey mocks media stories that profile woeful Ivy League grads who haven't landed the prestigious jobs they'd hoped for right out of college. He points out that these stories have been running in newspapers for decades--while also noting that an Ivy League education has only become more coveted (and lucrative) over the same period. "They always feature an over-educated bartender, and they are always wrong," Carey writes about the stories.
While The Lookout, too, has noticed a rash of over-hyped headlines about the value of college (ahem, New York magazine), we think these critics are too quick to brush off scholars' concerns about the higher education industry. The often overheated tenor of debate on both ends of the higher-ed question may make it harder to carry out an honest accounting of an industry that already tends to shy away from transparency.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You’re on, Ripsawyer.
I’m a history major. BA. No masters, nothing else but the BA.
I’ll take your challenge.
I didn’t issue any challenge, I reported my experience with local graduates. If I were going to issue a challenge I certainly would not do it on line where the answer to any history question is available in seconds just for the asking.
"Knowledge is Good" - Emil Faber.
Scouts honour. Why would I have anything to gain by cheating?
I’m curious as to what types of questions would be on an exam back then. I’m not saying I am disputing your claim, I’m just saying, not all of us are like this.
My daughter got her Masters @ Stanford last year. Soooooo glad she, too, did some TA and fellowships, etc. No way would I consider laying out (or borrowing) that kinda $$$. She now has a fabulous job she would never have gotten without that degree.
I think my son will benefit greatly as well, but he will have some debt from his first year. He could have stayed here in FL and done the program as a distance program and let his employer pay for it...but he wanted to be there. I’m proud of how he has sacrificed to do this and we enjoyed our recent visit out there!
One of my daughter’s classmates had a situation similar to your son .. I think he was able to work X hours or days a month and get some pay from his employer back in Chicago.
In most cases, given the intensity of the programs at Stanford, it’s best to be on campus, and if you gotta be on a campus, Stanford’s as good as any to be on! In fact, one day my daughter said she was biking to a class during her final quarter, stopped at a crossroads, when it hit her .. this is one beautiful campus! So intense had been the work, she hadn’t had time to stop and smell the roses, as it were. I hope your son takes that time.
Attendance at college may be correlated to having a higher ( on average) income. The attendance at college may not at all be the cause of that success. The fact that those who do finish college have higher IQs and are more driven and organized is the cause of their success.
By the way, Charles Murray, author of the “Bell Curve”, recommends that the B.S. degree be completely abandoned. He recommends that students take privately administered qualifying exams or certifying exams.
First off I don’t know if I made myself clear but I meant to refer to recent graduates of the university here where I live. If you are much more than thirty years old you wouldn’t be in that group and I have no idea of your age or where you went to school so I will give you a sample of questions that I have asked of recent history majors here.
1. Who was the president of the Confederacy?
2. What year did the American civil war start?
3. Who was president of the USA when the civil war started?
4. What political party did Abraham Lincoln belong to?
5. What nation did the original colonies revolt and go to war against to gain independence and form the USA?
6. What was the battle of Hastings?
7. What was the Magna Charta? (Charta is the spelling used when I was in school, not Carta)
8. Who was president of the USA when we entered WWII?
9. Who was the American president who ordered the bombing of Japan with nuclear weapons?
10.What countries formed the “Axis powers” of WWII?
Those are some of the easier questions I was expected to answer by seventh grade. When I asked these and got only one or two correct answers I didn’t bother to go on to such things as who were the Saxons, who were the Angles, who were the Franks, what was the Feudal system and much much more that I studied before my thirteenth birthday. We were expected to be able to write an explanation of what happened at the Battle of Hastings and how power shifted and changed the world and the same for a lot of other battles and wars. We could write a decent history of the American colonies including a description of trade with other countries and give an account of the entire American Revolution which I doubt could be matched by any young history major I have met recently, I could go on but I don’t want to spend the next hour at this keyboard. I hope that you are not like our local history majors.
Homeschoolers are proving that young teens can do well in college and graduate many **years** ahead of their peers who languish in government high schools. Homeschoolers have also proven that young teens can learn a trade and start businesses. These young homeschooled teens who are starting their lives years ahead of what is considered typical will earn **hundreds** of **thousands** of dollars over their lifetimes than those who attend the typical government high school!
Each year that a person is in the workforce is an opportunity for not only more money earned over a lifetime but **experience**! Experience makes a person a better and more reliable employee or gives the person an advantage if they are an owner of a business. Each year could mean ( literally) and extra $50,000, $100,000, or if they are a professional $150,000 to $250,000. It is **very** significant!
Another advantage is that they will be sufficiently financial secure to marry, start a family, and buy their first home while still in their twenties. That our typically schooled young adults are delaying marriage and children has significant adverse consequences ( morally, spiritually, culturally, and politically) for them and for our nation.
My homeschoolers entered college at the ages of 13, 12, and 13. The two younger finished B.S. degrees in math by the age of 18. The oldest will soon finish a masters in accounting at an age typical of those who attended government schools, but has also had the opportunity to do serious and meaningful work that has already provided significant income and experience for him.
Yes, as one who speaks at many homeschool conventions, I know what you say, although I graduated high school (public) at 16, college at 20, and got a Masters and Ph.D. in a total of about 3 years. So it’s not magic bullet. Anyone CAN do it with proper determination and focus.
LS,
You are absolutely right! Each year spent in college means a year of lost income for the young person and debt accumulated by the student or money paid out by the student, parents, or taxpayers for tuition.
The following is an essay, “Down with the four year College Degree”, by Charles Murray. He recommends abandoning the B.S. and B.A. degree completely and moving to credentialing exams.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/10/06/charles-murray/down-with-the-four-year-college-degree/
While Charles Murray focuses exclusively on college and university education, why not start credentialing exams far sooner? The following are some ideas that would get kids out of school sooner and save the states and taxpayers **TONS** of money! :
1) Any child of** any** age who passes the GED or similar private exam should be awarded an official high school diploma from his local government high school. Currently, in my state only those who are 19 or older are permitted to take the GED.
2) Begin credentialing exams in first grade. If a child passes a respectable exam in a specific subject he should be immediately promoted to the next level in that subject.
Courses, taught by the world’s best and most experienced teachers, could be posted on the Internet. They could start with first grade and even include courses on graduate school level. Even some ( many) professional school courses could lend themselves to this format. The cost to the student for the course and testing could be **FREE** if the producers accepted advertising. And...The producers could indeed become as rich as Mark Zuckerman.
Advantages for the student, parents, taxpayer, and state governments:
1) An official high school diploma would make loans and scholarships to post-secundary education and entrance into the military more straightforward.
2) The sooner a child leaves government K-12 school and fewer kids in school, the more the taxpayer saves in having to educated these kids!
3) The child can start on his adult career sooner. This could mean earning **hundreds of thousands** ( maybe even a million or more) dollars over a lifetime!
4) The more years our citizens work the higher is our GDP and the more wealth, and health, ( and fun) is produced for the world to enjoy.
5) Young adults tend to adopt unhealthy living habits when they delay their entrance into adulthood into their late twenties and thirties. These habits have consequences for their health ( more STDs, “hanging out,” sleeping around, greater and mental health issues, etc.), and are detrimental spiritually and morally. Getting settled earlier into marriage, family, home ownership, work, and community would benefit the young person greatly and our nation as a whole.
6) Ambitious and organized parents would begin to take responsibility for educating their own children. Ambitious students would as well. These would help undermine the dependence that the middle class has on the government schools and lessen support for government K-12 schools in the voting booth.
7) Credentialing would help encourage a vigorous cottage industry in private tutoring. This would lessen dependance on the government K-12 schools and this would reduce support for government schooling in the voting booth.
As for the government elementary schools, the advice of Saul Alinsky could be used against the Marxists! If the government must provide an appropriate education for **all**children, regardless of how profoundly retarded they might be, then it would be **inappropriate** to keep a child in a lower level when his credentialing exam proved he was ready for the next level. A few law suits against the government schools could open up the opportunity for ambitious and bright children to move through the K-12 system far more quickly.
Also...Ambitious parents and children might seek private tutoring. This would encourage the development of a thriving cottage industry in privately taught courses or tutoring, encourage self-sufficiency and confidence that parents need to educate their own children, and wean the middle classes away from their unhealthy dependance on government schools. ( Government schools are really nothing more than a welfare program for the middle classes.)
1. Who was the president of the Confederacy?
Jefferson Davis
2. What year did the American civil war start?
1861
3. Who was president of the USA when the civil war started?
Abraham Lincoln
4. What political party did Abraham Lincoln belong to?
Republican Party
5. What nation did the original colonies revolt and go to war against to gain independence and form the USA?
Great Britain
6. What was the battle of Hastings?
A battle fought between the Norman forces of William (the Bastard), Duke of Normandy and the Saxon forces of the then-reigning king of England, Harold Godwineson. Fought after the death of the Confessor in 1066, throwing open the secession between four claiments, the Saxon royal family (athelings), Norwegian King, (Harald Hardrada), Saxon Witangemot, (Godwineson), and William the Bastard.
Godwineson defeated Hardrada at Stamford Bridges in Northumberland and marched his army in 6 weeks, the length of England to strive against the Norman invasion in Sussex.
William defeated Godwineson and subjugated Saxon England.
His direct dynasty lasted until Matilda, but descendents from female lines continue on the throne of England today.
7. What was the Magna Charta? (Charta is the spelling used when I was in school, not Carta)
A pact signed between then King John Plantagenet and the Barons, ending the Baron war. The Magna Charta granted certain rights to the nobility, such as judicial trials and Habeas Corpus. The document is the foundation of the entire legal code of the British Commonwealth.
8. Who was president of the USA when we entered WWII?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
9. Who was the American president who ordered the bombing of Japan with nuclear weapons?
Harry Truman
10.What countries formed the “Axis powers” of WWII?
Nazi Germany, the Empire of Japan and Fascist Italy.
Do I pass?
“I hope that you are not like our local history majors.”
I hope I am not. I’m 30 as of a few weeks ago, but everything on your list I knew, probably coming out of elementary school as well.
I used to make a small fort and read through the histories of the presidents in my encyclopedia. At about 9 or 10? I was a ‘different’ sort of kid. :)
Don’t give up on us youngun’s.
The only tricky question is number 3.
One could make the argument that the Civil War began when the Star of the West was fired upon by Fort Sumpter, which occurred January 9th, of 1861.
The Confederacy itself was formed February 4th of 1861.
Lincoln wasn’t inaugurated until March of that year, after 7 states had already seceded.
Of course you pass but my point in the original post was that we have history majors in my area who can’t even answer three of those ten questions correctly. I didn’t make it up, it is true.
This is a tough question, when do you place the actual start date? Nobody agrees on that.
Actually it is Fort Sumter, not Sumpter and the Star of The West was not fired upon BY Fort Sumter, the union forces were at Fort Sumter and the Star was sent to resupply and reinforce the garrison at Fort Sumter. The firing was done from Morris Island by Citadel cadets.
I should have phrased it as who was president of the USA during the American civil war. That is a technicality though, my point in the original post is that we have history majors in my area who cannot correctly name the DECADE of the American civil war and don’t really seem certain of the century! I swear I am not making this up, you could forget about asking them for any detail like, name one Confederate general and one Union general, they don’t know anything like that. If one did manage to do it it would be because he saw something on the history channel and remembered it. They know even less about the revolution that birthed America. As I have said before we have history majors here who hold a university degree in history but could not pass a seventh grade history final from a South Carolina public school of the nineteen fifties. I had a conversation recently with a seventeen year old who is still in high school and his ignorance of history is nothing short of astounding. I honestly don’t know how one can grow up today and know nothing of history, he should have learned something from movies and television.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.