What will the future look like for colleges?

[3855WIN]

Absolutely, but I'm sure neither would have wanted to do all 4 years that way.

They HAVE NOT enjoyed the online experience.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

They HAVE NOT enjoyed the online experience.

Sorry, haven't had coffee yet.

 

[rwc101]

I had a really bad class in grad school that was online. I was glad to be able to drink through it.

 

[Nameless Range]

An argument can be made that the only thing that has skyrocketed in cost in the US more than health care is education. If the discussion is about ROI there is little question any more to me for many disciplines.

One thing that could change is the format of schooling. The UM Western does classes in such a way that one class is taken at a time. 3 hours a day for 3 weeks, and then it is done. I think something like this is interesting, because I think classes need to be more intense and difficult - to force a seriousness upon the students, as well as to focus any failures. Doing poorly in 5 classes over the course of a semester taken concurrently is easier than doing poorly in 5 classes, each seperately. Something like 30% of students drop out after their first year. There could also be some infrastructure savings related to a change in that direction.

I definitely agree that online classes are not as beneficial as classes in person. Many things will always require in person training.

 

[MThuntr]

An argument can be made that the only thing that has skyrocketed in cost in the US more than health care is education. If the discussion is about ROI there is little question any more to me for many disciplines.

One thing that could change is the format of schooling. The UM Western does classes in such a way that one class is taken at a time. 3 hours a day for 3 weeks, and then it is done. I think something like this is interesting, because I think classes need to be more intense and difficult - to force a seriousness upon the students, as well as to focus any failures. Doing poorly in 5 classes over the course of a semester taken concurrently is easier than doing poorly in 5 classes, each seperately. Something like 30% of students drop out after their first year. There could also be some infrastructure savings related to a change in that direction.

I definitely agree that online classes are not as beneficial as classes in person. Many things will always require in person training.

I work relatively closely with a couple UMW professors and this seems to be a very good way to get a lot of learning in. It sets students up to be responsible. No cutting class because you didn't feel like it (I'm guilty of that). If you miss you miss a week's worth of classes. The natural resources classes get field time, geology students get an intense course that I'm not sure I'd be able to handle. Our soils crew usually takes students out for a day of "this is what you really need to take from this course" kind of field day. I'd support more of the block scheduling.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

An argument can be made that the only thing that has skyrocketed in cost in the US more than health care is education. If the discussion is about ROI there is little question any more to me for many disciplines.

One thing that could change is the format of schooling. The UM Western does classes in such a way that one class is taken at a time. 3 hours a day for 3 weeks, and then it is done. I think something like this is interesting, because I think classes need to be more intense and difficult - to force a seriousness upon the students, as well as to focus any failures. Doing poorly in 5 classes over the course of a semester taken concurrently is easier than doing poorly in 5 classes, each seperately. Something like 30% of students drop out after their first year. There could also be some infrastructure savings related to a change in that direction.

I definitely agree that online classes are not as beneficial as classes in person. Many things will always require in person training.

The block system has been around for a while, Colorado College has been on the block for decades? My alma mater, had a fall semester, then a 1 month winter “block”, 4 week 1 course, and then a spring semester.

I really enjoyed my blocks, I think it most resembles the work place in terms of pace of work. I took a remote sensing course for a block, and turn around on projects was 1-3 days instead of a month.

 

[Europe]

Many good replies. My thoughts are "dated" both, cost wise and society wise. I was able to pay my way through college by working during the summers and holidays. We helped our children with the cost but we also insisted that they work summers and holidays, but even the cost of their education was not what it is today. BUT, neither was the amount of money we made, back then, in comparison to todays salaries .

Many employers require an Associate or Bachelors degree to qualify for employment. So until that changes, one will have no choice but to obtain a degree, if, you want a particular job with a particular company

Online vs Campus

If the only way you can get a diploma is via online and you need one to work in the field your interested in working in---then do it online!

But a college education on a campus gives you, IMHO, more than a diploma. The college experience was far more to me than a diploma.

The diploma helps one get in the door, but the other campus experiences you have in college can help you move up the ranks, in the company . Critical soft skills: people skills, communication skills, problem solving, collaboration, presentation, customer service and the willingness and ability to adjust to changing situations, both within the company your working for and their customers.

Dealing with other students from all walks of life. Race, Gender, Age, City kid, Farm kid, rich kid, poor kid,---plus working with and dealing with teachers, coaches, teammates, Sorority/Fraternities, as well with teammates in sports, debating teams, music, drama, art,. Learning to be self reliant and self motivated. Even how to resist, sex, drugs, alcohol, at least to some degree (-: Finding out that the word your mother used in your home "FAIR" doesn't carry the same weight in the real world that it did in your home.

However: having said all that, I personally believe colleges have gotten top heavy, financially speaking and something needs to change so that anyone who wants a campus college education can obtain one without spending the amount of money they are charging to day.

Reading all the posts before mine. There are some very well spoken ( written ) gentlemen on this forum who have made some excellent points. I am afraid my points are somewhat dated but I was asked to post my thoughts on this subject. I believe in a "continuing" education. Formal and life. Never stop learning

 

[2rocky]

Europe you and I agree that much of a college education takes place outside of a classroom. As a ranch kid, I was pretty sheltered from a social aspect. College was a pretty good training ground and I "found my people" there. That said i couldn't wait to get out in the real world and do what I was learning. Funny though once I got into my upper division classes the A's started rolling in. My first 2 years, uh well...not too spectacular...

The JC here has announced First Semester will be taught remotely....SIGH.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Yes! Colleges and Universities are not trade schools. You go to college to get a well rounded education, not just vocational training. Sure there are issues with costs, but let's not lose sight of this point. Going to college for me was life changing. It made me a better writer, a better reader, a better speaker, a better leader, a better thinker, the list goes on and on. I no longer work in the field that I majored in, but I certainly would not be where I am without my education. Was the cost worth it? I guess that's debatable. I think many people directly equate the cost to future earning potential, but I'm not sure that you can quantify the values of higher education. It's not for everyone, but there is certainly value beyond how big your paycheck is.

I mean, that's a beautiful ideal you have expressed there. It's also a somewhat elite view (I don't mean that pejoratively). For centuries higher education, or education at all, was reserved for the very few rich and elite of society while the lower classes learned trades. It was important for those elites to receive their liberal arts education so they could improve society and the lives of the people they would rule/employ. As education expanded to include the peasantry it became important to offer practical training as well as pluralistic knowledge.

Several decades ago, research was showing how much a higher ed degree increased a person's net worth and earning potential. Lower/middle class parents started paying attention and encouraged their kids to go to college to improve their prospects. My father used the GI bill and worked part time jobs. A few posters mentioned they paid for college working summers or nights/weekends.

Then student loans were made more available to allow a greater number of lower/middle class folks to obtain a higher education despite coming from families with mininal disposable income. IMO, that's where things went off the rails. Average public in-state costs are now ~$25k each year. If you aren't born into a situation where your family can comfortably pay for your education, you have to consider the practicality of $100k debt before entering the workforce (even with all of the intangible benefits you rightly described).

TLDR college is too expensive. Kids should be given more options. But maybe I'm just bitter because I'm 36 with $125k still left to pay .

 

[buckbull]

I hope you are right. Computer Science is a great example. My son has a genius for working with computers (all self-taught) but will never earn the elusive computer science diploma because he will never be able to pass a calculus class or many of the other degree requirements. Still, I can assure you he is more capable with computers then most who do earn the degree!

I have been in IT for about 23 years serving various roles including my current as a senior software architect. Part of my job is conducting technical interviews of candidates. I work for a small company and we do not have a bachelor degree requirement so from time to time I interview candidates that have an associates degree and have hired several and they have all worked out well; in fact, as well as anyone I have hired.

 

[Old man bob]

I say learn a good trade then Start your own Buss. You will make double to triple of what the average college grad makes If You are smart and not lazy. And no Student loans to pay off. My Daughter and Hubby both School teachers ,Daughter has masters , And I was making more than them combined. for a long time. But self Buss isn't for everyone. Especially if you have to sell things. Some don't have the Personality for that. I loved it . The key is knowing the buss You are in . I sold all on knowledge not BS .Good luck To all Students.............BOB!

 

[Old man bob]

I will add . Dave Ramsey said 2 days ago that 68% of CEO's and Presidents of Fortune 500 companies have degrees from State Schools and not High $ Private Schools. Just a thought for Ya!..............BOB!

 

[1_pointer]

I will add . Dave Ramsey said 2 days ago that 68% of CEO's and Presidents of Fortune 500 companies have degrees from State Schools and not High $ Private Schools. Just a thought for Ya!..............BOB!

Based on the numbers that attend each, that says more about the "High $ Private Schools" than the public schools IMO.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I will add . Dave Ramsey said 2 days ago that 68% of CEO's and Presidents of Fortune 500 companies have degrees from State Schools and not High $ Private Schools. Just a thought for Ya!..............BOB!

I think that is a bit misleading...

1. Scale

Texas AM - 4 CEOs - Undergrads ~70,000
Dartmouth - 2 CEOs Undergrad ~6,600

Governors
Texas AM - 0
Dartmouth - 5
Harvard - 5

So per capita private schools turn our fortune 500 CEOs at a much higher rate.

2. Attendance of post grad
Exxon Mobile - Darren Woods - Texas AM (undergrad ) - MBA Kellogg school of business Northwestern

This makes the whole list murky, Woods is classified as public attendee... but

3. Classification... University of Michigan, public... kinda?
Academic rankings, funding, etc are just complicated... it's really hard to compare apples to apples

I think if you aggregated all highly paid professionals, MDs, Lawyers, CEO, etc and then looked at the top 10% of earners in each of those professions you would find a very high percentage attended an elite private institution during their career.

The connections and name are the most important part of an "elite" education. I won't argue that a CU legal education isn't as good as a Harvard one , but how many CU grads get supreme court clerkship.

How many MSU business graduates intern at Goldman each year

The point isn't that if you don't follow a specific path you can't achieve a goal. The point is that there is a path that is more statistically likely to allow you to achieve that goal than other paths.

 

[elkduds]

Great posts here w real world experiences and outcomes.

It was 25 years ago I finished a Master's program w internship, 40 years since Bach. My professional field, mental health therapist, requires 2 years of supervised clinical practice and an exam after master's for licensure. Then one is minimally prepared for the risks and challenges of practice, IMO. As w IT, other tech and medical fields, continuing education is mandatory in my field. My education preceded the advent of online learning, so my only experience w it is as continuing ed. I see some topics and fields as better suited to online learning, others less so. I would have relished online courses in research methods, statistics, diagnostics, chemistry theory, perhaps jurisprudence. Everything else would not have translated well online, being too interactive, dynamic, "human." The best online continuing ed courses I had included group sessions live, individual live consultation, recording and instructor evaluation of live client sessions I provided. Lesser online education was group only, standardized content and tests, little or no personal feedback.

I think the future of most higher ed will be a hybrid of live and online. Each field is finding its own best blend of the 2. The more technical a field becomes, the more basic and ongoing education will be required. I can't think of any work field that is staying simple over time. Advanced education is becoming more valuable, not less, in this increasingly complex world. The easy parts can be had at a discount, not the higher levels. Sadly, other countries are increasing their technical advantage over the US by investing in better education. The majority of Americans around me seem less educated, intelligent and competent at self-determination than 20 or 40 years ago. Which increases the divide between the 90%, the 9%, and the 1%. That is not by accident. Given all that:

 

[Little Canyon Creek]

I think that is a bit misleading...

1. Scale

Texas AM - 4 CEOs - Undergrads ~70,000
Dartmouth - 2 CEOs Undergrad ~6,600

Governors
Texas AM - 0
Dartmouth - 5
Harvard - 5

So per capita private schools turn our fortune 500 CEOs at a much higher rate.

2. Attendance of post grad
Exxon Mobile - Darren Woods - Texas AM (undergrad ) - MBA Kellogg school of business Northwestern

This makes the whole list murky, Woods is classified as public attendee... but

3. Classification... University of Michigan, public... kinda?
Academic rankings, funding, etc are just complicated... it's really hard to compare apples to apples

I think if you aggregated all highly paid professionals, MDs, Lawyers, CEO, etc and then looked at the top 10% of earners in each of those professions you would find a very high percentage attended an elite private institution during their career.

The connections and name are the most important part of an "elite" education. I won't argue that a CU legal education isn't as good as a Harvard one , but how many CU grads get supreme court clerkship.

How many MSU business graduates intern at Goldman each year

The point isn't that if you don't follow a specific path you can't achieve a goal. The point is that there is a path that is more statistically likely to allow you to achieve that goal than other paths.

I think this holds true more for non-science degrees. In chemistry people don't really care where you did your undergraduate work, and if you look at every research group in the top research institutions of the country, you will see that they are always filled by students from smaller, less well known schools. People know that lab work and class work are very different, and we have all seen people who got undergraduate degrees from big name institutions flame out for one reason or another. So instead of putting a lot of emphasis on where people did their undergraduate degrees, people put a lot more emphasis on where and with whom they did their graduate or postdoctoral work. This is better, but obviously not perfect.

Off the top of my head, a former MIT chemistry department head grew up in Sheridan, Montana and did their undergrad in Bozeman. The current department chair at UC-Berkeley did their undergrad at Miami University in Ohio. The biggest name in organic chemistry got their undergraduate degree from New York University. Great scientists come from not super well known undergraduate programs.

If there are any high school students reading this thread and thinking about where they want to go for a science degree, I would say look at the state schools. They are a lot less expensive than the elite universities, while offering as good an education. It is also a lot easier to get your hands dirty in a research group, which really allows you to demonstrate your ability to your future letter writers while also giving you an opportunity to figure out if you actually like the work. And from my experience, students who came from the public institutions are usually, though not always, more competitive and better prepared for the harsh realities of grad school than the people who come from smaller liberal arts institutions.

 

[2rocky]

I say learn a good trade then Start your own Buss. You will make double to triple of what the average college grad makes If You are smart and not lazy. And no Student loans to pay off. My Daughter and Hubby both School teachers ,Daughter has masters , And I was making more than them combined. for a long time. But self Buss isn't for everyone. Especially if you have to sell things. Some don't have the Personality for that. I loved it . The key is knowing the buss You are in . I sold all on knowledge not BS .Good luck To all Students.............BOB!

But iI think a good background in Accounting and business principles is necessary to make that business work. You don't have to be an MBA or a CPA, but you need to be able to argue intelligently with the professionals you rely on for their advice. Also build a hands on business you can hire people to do, and train them!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think this holds true more for non-science degrees. In chemistry people don't really care where you did your undergraduate work, and if you look at every research group in the top research institutions of the country, you will see that they are always filled by students from smaller, less well known schools. People know that lab work and class work are very different, and we have all seen people who got undergraduate degrees from big name institutions flame out for one reason or another. So instead of putting a lot of emphasis on where people did their undergraduate degrees, people put a lot more emphasis on where and with whom they did their graduate or postdoctoral work. This is better, but obviously not perfect.

Off the top of my head, a former MIT chemistry department head grew up in Sheridan, Montana and did their undergrad in Bozeman. The current department chair at UC-Berkeley did their undergrad at Miami University in Ohio. The biggest name in organic chemistry got their undergraduate degree from New York University. Great scientists come from not super well known undergraduate programs.

If there are any high school students reading this thread and thinking about where they want to go for a science degree, I would say look at the state schools. They are a lot less expensive than the elite universities, while offering as good an education. It is also a lot easier to get your hands dirty in a research group, which really allows you to demonstrate your ability to your future letter writers while also giving you an opportunity to figure out if you actually like the work. And from my experience, students who came from the public institutions are usually, though not always, more competitive and better prepared for the harsh realities of grad school than the people who come from smaller liberal arts institutions.

Which is kinda what I was trying to say with my second point look at arguably the most important Montanan of all time Maurice Hilleman, Montana State--> then Uchicago.

I think you have to look at the path of the top professionals in any field... there will be trends. Those trends are the most likely paths to success.

You want a Nobel... UChicago is probably a school you want to spend some time at during your career.

 

[MJE2083]

I agree, the costs are a problem. However, I've heard many here describe that they learned just as much outside of the class room as inside of it. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I think that schools now realize that and are offering extensive services and programs outside of the traditional class room. Full disclosure, I work for a University. The amount of extra-curricular programming and services are unbelievable! All of that comes at a cost, and I think that's been a major driver in the financial problem. At the same time though, those services are a MAJOR selling feature for people. Education is a competitive business and those programs offer an edge(or at least even the playing field) with the competition. It does of course favor the wealthy and well connected as many things do.

 

[np307]

So I'm in the final week (except for one paper that I have another month to finish) of my Master's education. Let me preface this by saying this is for a degree in Biblical Studies, which will necessarily tailor the relevance of how the coursework is done to my particular situation. It has all been done online via two different types of classes. The first is the standard online course. "Read this, watch this lecture, post this discussion forum, write this paper and you're done." The primary value out of those, in my opinion, comes from the paper requirements. That allows me to develop and crystalize my understanding of deeper subjects. The pre-recorded lectures don't really do much for me. I could just as easily consume that information via course notes or a textbook. Discussion forums are a waste of time in my opinion.

The second type of class is called "virtual." I was using zoom long before covid brought it to everyone's attention. Many of the classes I took virtually actually had about a 50/50 split between students who were in the classroom with the prof and those of us who were distance. The requirements for these courses are exactly what you would expect a resident course to be like. Attendance requirements, scheduled class times, etc. The huge benefit was the ability to interact live with the prof in class. This has been especially helpful for Greek. In these courses, I feel like I benefit equally between classroom instruction and paper requirements. It is impossible for a virtual class to exactly replicate the in-person classroom experience, but it comes very close.

So what does this mean for the discussion at hand? Probably not much in the immediate future. This is but one part of a very complicated (largely over-complicated) higher education system and there's a lot of money involved. In reality, what I think will be the ultimate doom of the college system is the internet. While a bachelor's or master's is currently the lazy way to "vet" someone as meeting the requirements to fill a position, I believe specialized, privately offered instruction will eventually replace this. It will have to. The money doesn't make sense, as many people are realizing, for a typical 4-year degree. Why spend two of those four years on classes not immediately relevant to your field of choice when you could spend that time accomplishing the same end-goal more quickly through an alternative route. The big question will be how long it takes for the marketplace to realize this and adjust. It isn't viable so long as letters after your name have to come via a traditional degree.