I always find it a bit odd when we start at the end of things that says "College should lead to a job, what's wrong with college?" but that is a bed that three generations of politicians and three generations of university leaders have made together. It feels a lot closer to the mark to talk about the actual labor markets which exist out there, and the actual costs of living that the current market economy piles on to young people with all the forms of subsidy that the young people of the 1950s and 1960s had now taken away. If there aren't very much good jobs, defined either as something you can be good at in a meaningful sense and/or as something that pays enough to live and begin to see the hazy contours of future advancement within, then that says something about our economy, about our social infrastructure, about work and workplaces, rather than college. If only a few people went to college--or even did one-year programs to read sonagrams--the economic outlook for young people wouldn't magically improve. If everybody did one-year programs that were narrowly targets at particular jobs requiring specific technical competencies, we'd find that there are only so many sonagrams that need reading, and most people would still be answering the Land's End catalog phone. We don't approach the problem from that end because as parents, as families, and as citizens, we have nothing we can do about any of that, and the people who might have ideas treat the labor market and economy as if they are a purely natural phenomenon to which one might adapt but which cannot be shaped deliberately in any fashion.
Yes, I'm sure you're right, Tim. But I think that parents spend $300K for their kid's college education with the expectation that it will lead to a good job. The stats say that there's only a 50/50 chance of finding a good job after college. I just want people to know that reality. Colleges can't change the labor market. Maybe nobody can change the labor market. I just want families to know the stats and then make the best decisions that they can for their students.
The problem here is that even the bad jobs are using bachelor's degrees as a screening mechanism, so the investment in college and the credential it provides has become a necessary precondition of many forms of employment, good and bad, whether or not those jobs actually depend on that credential. I agree parents should understand that, but it actually doesn't change the calculation involved in pursuing a BA. The thing here is that parents (and students) who aren't happy about that need to stop thinking that college is at *fault* for the way that credential is being appended to labor markets (increasingly through the use of AI screeners). If there's a problem that needs fixing here, it is in that sense not college itself. (Even some sonogram reading programs use college degrees as a credential for entry into their programs...)
And think we can and *should* have this conversation without assigning blame to colleges. Greater awareness of the facts will lower false expectations and could lead to families making different choices. For example, we know from the research that students can increase their chances for employment after graduation by taking certain steps, like getting an internship. I think that is excellent information that students and parents should know.
I would have to check the original study, but I think that researchers found that college grads were taking jobs that didn't have a BA requirement, like the rental car dealership.
I do think that there's going to be an uptick in students getting second degrees at their community colleges and local trade school. The local sonogram reading programs do not require a BA. And for those that complete the program, they have a 100 percent job placement. Huge, huge demand right now. My cousin just went back for a one year nursing degree at a community college. She was employed in a week and making BIG bucks.
Looking at the sonagram programs, a lot of them are in associate degree programs that require a high school degree or GED and usually C+ or better in specific high school classes that have to have been taken in the past 3-5 years; but a lot also require a few specific college-level courses if not a completed BA (clearly angling for premeds who decide to bail).
The oddity of the last decade for me has been that community colleges have been the hardest hit in terms of falling enrollments, even before the pandemic. I didn't expect that and I'm not sure I understand it.
I've got two young adults in a cc right now. One is thinking about going back for a computer degree and is exploring his options. He just got off the phone ranting about the bureaucracy. He said that the staff at Starbucks is more competent. I think the bad systems at CCs derail a lot of students. The for-profit trade schools have better employment records. They are also competing with online schools.
I've been teaching in a community college for over 20 years and also don't understand why the lowest-cost, fastest-way to a paying job option is not taken by more folks. We often think it has to do with what parents talk about to other parents--few will admit their kids are community college students--especially the relatively higher-end middle class parents who can choose the high-end colleges Laura mentions.
I think it has to do with the stigma that CCs have always had, that they're vocational, that they take the kids who can't go to a real college, and the like. I also think high school counselors play a large role in this as well. And high recruiting efforts by four-year schools have an effect. Like Laura, I've met folks who've finished degrees at Washington University in St Louis, a Ivy-level school in terms of prestige and cost, come to us for a vocational degree after graduating.
Of course, the CCs themselves bear some of the blame--we're not good at marketing, and our enrollment processes can be overly complicated and opaque. We need to point out that half the nurses in the country come from CCs, something that hasn't changed for decades, and that the majority of allied health folks--sonogram and other imaging folks, dental hygienists, OR techs, and respiratory therapists--come from us. Of course, we also do transfer students, and many of us offer education in the trades. We do this on about 1/5 of the funding that four year publics get, too.
I am hopeful this will change over time, but until we stop seeing prestige as the measure of an institution and its degrees, it won't.
I always find it a bit odd when we start at the end of things that says "College should lead to a job, what's wrong with college?" but that is a bed that three generations of politicians and three generations of university leaders have made together. It feels a lot closer to the mark to talk about the actual labor markets which exist out there, and the actual costs of living that the current market economy piles on to young people with all the forms of subsidy that the young people of the 1950s and 1960s had now taken away. If there aren't very much good jobs, defined either as something you can be good at in a meaningful sense and/or as something that pays enough to live and begin to see the hazy contours of future advancement within, then that says something about our economy, about our social infrastructure, about work and workplaces, rather than college. If only a few people went to college--or even did one-year programs to read sonagrams--the economic outlook for young people wouldn't magically improve. If everybody did one-year programs that were narrowly targets at particular jobs requiring specific technical competencies, we'd find that there are only so many sonagrams that need reading, and most people would still be answering the Land's End catalog phone. We don't approach the problem from that end because as parents, as families, and as citizens, we have nothing we can do about any of that, and the people who might have ideas treat the labor market and economy as if they are a purely natural phenomenon to which one might adapt but which cannot be shaped deliberately in any fashion.
Yes, I'm sure you're right, Tim. But I think that parents spend $300K for their kid's college education with the expectation that it will lead to a good job. The stats say that there's only a 50/50 chance of finding a good job after college. I just want people to know that reality. Colleges can't change the labor market. Maybe nobody can change the labor market. I just want families to know the stats and then make the best decisions that they can for their students.
The problem here is that even the bad jobs are using bachelor's degrees as a screening mechanism, so the investment in college and the credential it provides has become a necessary precondition of many forms of employment, good and bad, whether or not those jobs actually depend on that credential. I agree parents should understand that, but it actually doesn't change the calculation involved in pursuing a BA. The thing here is that parents (and students) who aren't happy about that need to stop thinking that college is at *fault* for the way that credential is being appended to labor markets (increasingly through the use of AI screeners). If there's a problem that needs fixing here, it is in that sense not college itself. (Even some sonogram reading programs use college degrees as a credential for entry into their programs...)
And think we can and *should* have this conversation without assigning blame to colleges. Greater awareness of the facts will lower false expectations and could lead to families making different choices. For example, we know from the research that students can increase their chances for employment after graduation by taking certain steps, like getting an internship. I think that is excellent information that students and parents should know.
I would have to check the original study, but I think that researchers found that college grads were taking jobs that didn't have a BA requirement, like the rental car dealership.
I do think that there's going to be an uptick in students getting second degrees at their community colleges and local trade school. The local sonogram reading programs do not require a BA. And for those that complete the program, they have a 100 percent job placement. Huge, huge demand right now. My cousin just went back for a one year nursing degree at a community college. She was employed in a week and making BIG bucks.
Looking at the sonagram programs, a lot of them are in associate degree programs that require a high school degree or GED and usually C+ or better in specific high school classes that have to have been taken in the past 3-5 years; but a lot also require a few specific college-level courses if not a completed BA (clearly angling for premeds who decide to bail).
The oddity of the last decade for me has been that community colleges have been the hardest hit in terms of falling enrollments, even before the pandemic. I didn't expect that and I'm not sure I understand it.
I've got two young adults in a cc right now. One is thinking about going back for a computer degree and is exploring his options. He just got off the phone ranting about the bureaucracy. He said that the staff at Starbucks is more competent. I think the bad systems at CCs derail a lot of students. The for-profit trade schools have better employment records. They are also competing with online schools.
I've been teaching in a community college for over 20 years and also don't understand why the lowest-cost, fastest-way to a paying job option is not taken by more folks. We often think it has to do with what parents talk about to other parents--few will admit their kids are community college students--especially the relatively higher-end middle class parents who can choose the high-end colleges Laura mentions.
I think it has to do with the stigma that CCs have always had, that they're vocational, that they take the kids who can't go to a real college, and the like. I also think high school counselors play a large role in this as well. And high recruiting efforts by four-year schools have an effect. Like Laura, I've met folks who've finished degrees at Washington University in St Louis, a Ivy-level school in terms of prestige and cost, come to us for a vocational degree after graduating.
Of course, the CCs themselves bear some of the blame--we're not good at marketing, and our enrollment processes can be overly complicated and opaque. We need to point out that half the nurses in the country come from CCs, something that hasn't changed for decades, and that the majority of allied health folks--sonogram and other imaging folks, dental hygienists, OR techs, and respiratory therapists--come from us. Of course, we also do transfer students, and many of us offer education in the trades. We do this on about 1/5 of the funding that four year publics get, too.
I am hopeful this will change over time, but until we stop seeing prestige as the measure of an institution and its degrees, it won't.