Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on April 21, 2014, 10:05:56 AM
-
Or maybe Governor Goodhair is not so dumb:
Texas's 'Impossible' $10K Degree Marches On
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2014/04/18/texass_impossible_10k_degree_marches_on_916.html
Perry may have launched a revolution of his own. Perry challenged Texas's public universities to craft four-year degrees costing no more than $10,000 in tuition, fees, and books, and to achieve the necessary cost reductions by teaching students online and awarding degrees based on competency.
The idea met with skepticism.
One year after the governor's challenge, Texas A&M-San Antonio became the first school to answer the call, announcing a bachelor's degree in information technology costing students just under $10,000 in tuition and fees. Today, eleven other Texas schools have announced $10,000 degree initiatives.
The burgeoning revolution has not been confined to the Lone Star State.
The rapid expansion of $10,000 degree offerings has not satisfied the "It's impossible" critics. They note that the fledgling programs are limited to a few subject areas, mostly the applied sciences, and argue that the same model cannot work in other fields.
the $10,000 degree programs that reduced the price charged to the student but not the cost incurred by the school did not employ the means Perry specified -- online learning and competency-based exams.
That's changing. Three higher-education partners -- Texas A&M University-Commerce, South Texas College, and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) -- just launched the "Affordable Baccalaureate Program," the state's first public university bachelor's degree combining online learning and competency-based standards.
Will this latest salvo strike the decisive blow in the revolution? It is too early to tell. But a few facts we know too well. One study finds that average tuition and fees nationwide have risen 440 percent over the past 25 years, roughly four times the rate of inflation and nearly twice the rate of health-care cost growth.
Ever since Perry took office, the commonest attack on him is that he is stupid. I wonder what that makes the Democrats, since he has beaten them like a drum in every single election for governor?
This issue and initiative is such a win-win for Perry, Republicans, and conservatives:
1. It gets aspiring folks/families who want their kids to get a degree favorably disposed toward minimalist gov't solutions.
2. It makes the current higher ed infrastructure innovate to provide it.
3. It will eventually cut a huge hunk of hide & flesh from the leftist academy, especially the competency tests.
4. The competency tests will undermine racialist gov't and corporate affirmative action / diversity initiatives.
-
Just saw this at instapundit:
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/04/texas_leads_the_way_on_higher-.html
Texas is credited with having "the most sophisticated and publicly available higher-education data set in the country." In 2004, Governor Rick Perry signed an executive order which asserted that "the public has the right to demand complete accountability for its investment in institutions of education." Accordingly, the order, entitled "Relating to accountability of higher education systems and institutions," calls on the state's public universities to "provide the citizens of Texas, the Governor, and the Legislature with the information necessary to determine the effectiveness and quality of the education students receive at individual institutions."
This wasn't just talk. Last year, the Texas Legislature passed Texas House Bill 1296, which requires the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to "prepare information comparing institutions of higher education in this state and post the information" on THECB's website. This information is to be provided to any "public school student who requests the information." The mandated information includes identifying "postsecondary education and career opportunities, including information that states the benefits of four-year and two-year higher education programs, postsecondary technical education, skilled workforce careers, and career education programs."
The key provision in the bill requires THECB to "compare each institution of higher education with other institutions" regarding relative tuition costs; relative retention rates; relative graduation rates; average student debt; "the loan repayment rate of students"; and "the employment rate of students."
Non-gov't entities are already data mining the data sets.
-
I love the critics whining that the degrees are in applied sciences. I guess offering low cost, low impact degrees in fields that people might actually be able to get gainful employment in is something worth criticizing? :facepalm:
-
I am a big fan of the online/distance learning approach. It is how I earned my MBA from the Edinburgh Business School, and these programs generally make money for the schools. Impressive start-up costs designing the curriculum and the instructional and testing infrastructure, but once these are paid for, the ongoing costs are minimal.
-
I love the critics whining that the degrees are in applied sciences. I guess offering low cost, low impact degrees in fields that people might actually be able to get gainful employment in is something worth criticizing? :facepalm:
It's not the liberal arts degree gravy train...charging outrageous costs for a piece of paper that ain't worth spit is something that many do not want to end.
-
It's not the liberal arts degree gravy train...charging outrageous costs for a piece of paper that ain't worth spit is something that many do not want to end.
For more reasons than just the money.
Most of the useless majors are political in nature. The people who hold those political positions take significant personal well-being from being a "XXXXX-studies" major/professor/journalist.
My impression is they are not interested in the money per se, except as a means of supporting fellow travelers. They are far more interested in retaining the platform for propaganda funded by the government.
As a result, they will fight this tooth and nail. (A parallel is the fight over vouchers and school choice. Same principal applies.)
-
I love the critics whining that the degrees are in applied sciences. I guess offering low cost, low impact degrees in fields that people might actually be able to get gainful employment in is something worth criticizing? :facepalm:
Yep
As for the article: this is great.
Other great things happening in TX.... the Hazelwood act is now transferrable to dependents. So all these TX veterans who don't need the Hazelwood bennies can pass them on to their kids, which basically makes a B.S. free.
It's the prime reason I moved back to TX. As long as my kid goes to a school that receives funding from the state, her first 150 semester hours are free.
-
My impression is they are not interested in the money per se, except as a means of supporting fellow travelers. They are far more interested in retaining the platform for propaganda funded by the government.
More to the point, applied sciences programs discriminate against the ignorant and lazy to a much greater degree than most liberal arts programs.
-
More to the point, applied sciences programs discriminate against the ignorant and lazy to a much greater degree than most liberal arts programs.
any degree that doesn't do that is not worth the paper it is printed on.
-
So applied science are we talking HVAC, Welding, Plumbing, Electrical or are we talking Agronomy, Horticulture, Forestry, Nursing, Dental Assistant, etc?
-
So applied science are we talking HVAC, Welding, Plumbing, Electrical or are we talking Agronomy, Horticulture, Forestry, Nursing, Dental Assistant, etc?
I hear they have a degree in Myth-busting.
-
So applied science are we talking HVAC, Welding, Plumbing, Electrical or are we talking Agronomy, Horticulture, Forestry, Nursing, Dental Assistant, etc?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Applied_Science
More like: Applied Physics, [Mechanical/Chemical/Electrical/Civil/Etc] Engineering, Computer Science, Business Management, and so on.
No wonder the libs are so pissed. [popcorn]
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Applied_Science
More like: Applied Physics, [Mechanical/Chemical/Electrical/Civil/Etc] Engineering, Computer Science, Business Management, and so on.
No wonder the libs are so pissed. [popcorn]
Butbutbut what about teh Womyn's Studies?
-
I hear they have a degree in Myth-busting.
Huh?
-
So applied science are we talking HVAC, Welding, Plumbing, Electrical or are we talking Agronomy, Horticulture, Forestry, Nursing, Dental Assistant, etc?
Applied science: Testing theories by collecting data, building and testing things, asking "What if?", and generally working to disprove the null hypothesis.
Theoretical science: A Birkenstock wearing, tenured schmuck sitting in a university office telling me I'm doing it all wrong.
-
Applied science: Testing theories by collecting data, building and testing things, asking "What if?", and generally working to disprove the null hypothesis.
Theoretical science: A Birkenstock wearing, tenured schmuck sitting in a university office telling me I'm doing it all wrong.
Isn't applied science taking learned knowledge and applying it to solve a problem?
Such as why is my corn yield reduced in Harps soil? Answer Harps is a highly calcaric (Calcium) soil and more than likely deficient in phosphorus.
-
Isn't applied science taking learned knowledge and applying it to solve a problem?
Applied science; things you can get a white collar job in outside academia.
-
Isn't applied science taking learned knowledge and applying it to solve a problem?
That's pretty much what it is. Learned knowledge along with "I wonder what will happen if...?" With the understanding that failure is a perfectly viable conclusion. Failure is a beautiful thing in science, because it has just eliminated a potentially false path. Sadly these days, too many scientists are too worried about being "right" and seem to tend more towards fighting to prove a hypothesis versus disproving the null (e.g., Michael Mann).
-
Sadly these days, too many scientists are too worried about being "right" and seem to tend more towards fighting to prove a hypothesis versus disproving the null (e.g., Michael Mann).
Agree
-
That's pretty much what it is. Learned knowledge along with "I wonder what will happen if...?" With the understanding that failure is a perfectly viable conclusion. Failure is a beautiful thing in science, because it has just eliminated a potentially false path. Sadly these days, too many scientists are too worried about being "right" and seem to tend more towards fighting to prove a hypothesis versus disproving the null (e.g., Michael Mann).
I don't care as long as they hurry up with the food replicators, transporters and holodecks.
-
Butbutbut what about teh Womyn's Studies?
That is in the next phase of $1000 degrees. However, it might end up in phase 3 of $100 degrees. Depends on if you apply the actual worth of the degree to the cost.
-
I don't care as long as they hurry up with the food replicators, transporters and holodecks.
You forgot the phasers. [tinfoil] :facepalm: :rofl:
-
That is in the next phase of $1000 degrees. However, it might end up in phase 3 of $100 degrees. Depends on if you apply the actual worth of the degree to the cost.
If they're going to go for actual value, I might sit through it and let them pay me $10k.
-
Just about the time this thread appeared I saw in my local newspaper an article borrowed from some big, mid-western paper about a woman who is setting out to unionize adjunct professors. According to the article, adjuncts are paid only $10,000 to $15,000 per year, with no job security and no benefits, for what is effectively almost a full-time job. This is for people with Ph.Ds. That's less than the stipend graduate teaching assistants receive, in many cases.
The article notes that the percentage of such poorly-paid adjunct professors compared to tenure track positions has risen from about 30 percent several years ago to 60 or 70 percent today. Which tells me that the universities are scamming the students, annually raising tuition by factors much higher than inflation or the CPI while at the same time cutting the real cost to the university of the most expensive part of providing the education -- the instructors.
Not the article I saw, but on the same topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/us/more-college-adjuncts-see-strength-in-union-numbers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
-
According to the article, adjuncts are paid only $10,000 to $15,000 per year, with no job security and no benefits, for what is effectively almost a full-time job.
Know how to fix that? It's called the employment section of their local paper.
It doesn't take a union for people to simply refuse to work for a wage they find unacceptable. If they have no other marketable skills, and no one's willing to pay more for the ones they do have, then they need to either get new skills or learn to accept whatever crumbs someone will throw them.
-
Just about the time this thread appeared I saw in my local newspaper an article borrowed from some big, mid-western paper about a woman who is setting out to unionize adjunct professors. According to the article, adjuncts are paid only $10,000 to $15,000 per year, with no job security and no benefits, for what is effectively almost a full-time job. This is for people with Ph.Ds. That's less than the stipend graduate teaching assistants receive, in many cases.
The article notes that the percentage of such poorly-paid adjunct professors compared to tenure track positions has risen from about 30 percent several years ago to 60 or 70 percent today. Which tells me that the universities are scamming the students, annually raising tuition by factors much higher than inflation or the CPI while at the same time cutting the real cost to the university of the most expensive part of providing the education -- the instructors.
Not the article I saw, but on the same topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/us/more-college-adjuncts-see-strength-in-union-numbers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Close, but no. They are still paying the "instructors" a significant wage. However, these professors do very little instructing. They do research. Additionally, the administrative costs have risen three- or fourfold. What was once one dean per campus is now multiple deans and multiple vice presidents. With an attendant staff for each.
They pay the adjuncts basically nothing because they are spending so much elsewhere and SOMEONE has to teach these classes. The tenured faculty have long ago demanded that they be required to teach at most 2 classes a semester.
-
Are the adjunct professors trying for experience or just hoping for full professor positions? It seems to me there are plenty of small colleges and junior colleges who might need instructors.
-
Are the adjunct professors trying for experience or just hoping for full professor positions? It seems to me there are plenty of small colleges and junior colleges who might need instructors.
I have some friends who are adjuncts at local community colleges. They do it for two reasons: they are trying to make some money and experience while waiting for a tenure track position to open up at some college/university, if ever; and they are damn thrilled to be working in their field at all. They have told me stories about hundreds of PhDs applying for a single anthopology position, for example. Even at the adjunct level, for most teaching positions, there is a tremendous oversupply.
-
I don't care as long as they hurry up with the food replicators, transporters and holodecks.
To heck with those. I want my flying cars and personal service robots.