Education

[Bill Marsh]

For all? Maybe not. But for those who are actually qualified I think we are better served as nation finding a way to make it happen. I think we fundamentally disagree on this but I could be wrong.




I'm 100% for improving K-12 education. That takse money. Not blindly throwing money at it for the sake of throwing money at, but it does take money to attract better teachers, to build more schools, and to reduce class size. There is no way around that.

Not to mention the continual need to invest in ever changing modern technology. That costs money. It’s no longer just a teacher, a text book, and desks & chairs.

[Maynerd]

...but I think that an educated populace is it's own reward and society benefits from it enough that it's is not necessary.

That's why K-12 education is taxpayer funded, as it should be. Why is it now necessary to define "educated populace" as an undergrad degree, rather than a HS diploma? If, in fact, that additional education is a societal benefit, why would we continue the current structure of public and private colleges? Wouldn't it be reasonable, at that point, to abandon colleges altogether, and expand local public education for four additional years? You'd then have a school system with elementary, middle, high school, and undergrad sub-levels. If we're going to send everybody, and if the taxpayer is footing the bill, why wouldn't it make sense to keep it under local control?

[Texsahara]

That's why K-12 education is taxpayer funded, as it should be. Why is it now necessary to define "educated populace" as an undergrad degree, rather than a HS diploma? If, in fact, that additional education is a societal benefit, why would we continue the current structure of public and private colleges? Wouldn't it be reasonable, at that point, to abandon colleges altogether, and expand local public education for four additional years? You'd then have a school system with elementary, middle, high school, and undergrad sub-levels. If we're going to send everybody, and if the taxpayer is footing the bill, why wouldn't it make sense to keep it under local control?

From that pov, why is it necessary to define educated populace as having a HS diploma? "In 1910 19% of 15- to 18-year-olds were enrolled in a high school; barely 9% of all American 18-year-olds graduated. By 1940, 73% of American youths were enrolled in high school and the median American youth had a high school diploma." That changed because the world changed and along with it, the needs of the work place. Without any post HS education, be it college or trade school, the odds of achieving middle class status are minuscule. The average salary is about 25% lower than with a college degree and unemployment among people with just a HS diploma is nearly double that of college graduates. I'm not the one defining what constitutes an educated populace, society is.

And no, it would not be reasonable or make any sense. Colleges do not serve any single, local municipality nor should they. Their needs are vastly different than the needs of K-12.

[Yankee Tripper]

That's why K-12 education is taxpayer funded, as it should be. Why is it now necessary to define "educated populace" as an undergrad degree, rather than a HS diploma? If, in fact, that additional education is a societal benefit, why would we continue the current structure of public and private colleges? Wouldn't it be reasonable, at that point, to abandon colleges altogether, and expand local public education for four additional years? You'd then have a school system with elementary, middle, high school, and undergrad sub-levels. If we're going to send everybody, and if the taxpayer is footing the bill, why wouldn't it make sense to keep it under local control?

Because those who earn a BS degree on average earn 2.4 times what high school graduates earn.

They contribute more in taxes, make greater contributions to the GDP, comit crimes at far lower rates, and receive far less social assistance.

[Maynerd]

And no, it would not be reasonable or make any sense. Colleges do not serve any single, local municipality nor should they. Their needs are vastly different than the needs of K-12.

That's because the model we're currently employing is one where a subset of the population attends college, and colleges focus more on grants and publishing than they do student achievement. If we change the model such that education beyond 12th Grade is open to everyone, I'm not understanding why State U is necessary, or even desirable.

If the desired model is 16 years of taxpayer-funded education, for the societal benefits of that education, why would the last four years of that education be remoted from the local Boards of Education? You say it doesn't make sense. To me, it doesn't make sense to send our kids.....ALL of our kids....away to four years of college. The taxpayer has a voice in K-12 education. What voice would they have if their dollars are going to a non-local college? If it's going to be an across-the-board continuation of public education, why layer on the additional expense? If you're going to change the model, change ALL of it.

[Yankee Tripper]

Because k-12 is designed to give basic foundation.

13-16 is disgigned to get you ready for you specific field. Makes no sense to restrict that to local control.

[Texsahara]

That's because the model we're currently employing is one where a subset of the population attends college, and colleges focus more on grants and publishing than they do student achievement. If we change the model such that education beyond 12th Grade is open to everyone, I'm not understanding why State U is necessary, or even desirable.

If the desired model is 16 years of taxpayer-funded education, for the societal benefits of that education, why would the last four years of that education be remoted from the local Boards of Education? You say it doesn't make sense. To me, it doesn't make sense to send our kids.....ALL of our kids....away to four years of college. The taxpayer has a voice in K-12 education. What voice would they have if their dollars are going to a non-local college? If it's going to be an across-the-board continuation of public education, why layer on the additional expense? If you're going to change the model, change ALL of it.

"Colleges focus more on grants and publishing than they do student achievement" - anything to support that? If so please link me up. Sounds fishy to me.

Community college, four year college, trade school. One size does not fit all. A HS diploma is no longer a sufficient amount of education to succeed at life. You can object all you want but that won't change anything. It's not the 70s anymore.

[Yankee Tripper]

"Colleges focus more on grants and publishing than they do student achievement" - anything to support that? If so please link me up. Sounds fishy to me.

There is definitely some support for Maynerd’s claim on this one. How much is open to debate but there is no doubt some of this does go on. My wife is a reasrch scientist at UCB who teaches some courses and would absolutely support some on Maynerd’s claims WRT to multiple professors.

Community college, four year college, trade school. One size does not fit all. A HS diploma is no longer a sufficient amount of education to succeed at life. You can object all you want but that won't change anything. It's not the 70s anymore.

Preach on!

[Texsahara]

There is definitely some support for Maynerd’s claim on this one. How much is open to debate but there is no doubt some of this does go on. My wife is a reasrch scientist at UCB who teaches some courses and would absolutely support some on Maynerd’s claims WRT to multiple professors.

I'm not arguing that there is not an importance placed on grants and publishing and in *some* cases it's too important. I'm saying the blanket statement that colleges care more about it than student achievement is a hyperbole. Maynerd repeatedly stating it as fact warrants asking him to back it up. While schools may depend on grants and publishing to enhance their reputation and value, they also depend on student success for the same reasons. Plus the idea that educators as a group don't care about student achievement is absurd.

[Yankee Tripper]

I'm not arguing that there is not an importance placed on grants and publishing and in *some* cases it's too important. I'm saying the blanket statement that colleges care more about it than student achievement is a hyperbole. Maynerd repeatedly stating it as fact warrants asking him to back it up. While schools may depend on grants and publishing to enhance their reputation and value, they also depend on student success for the same reasons. Plus the idea that educators as a group don't care about student achievement is absurd.

I think it is often specific to certain STEM fields.


Though it can be argued that much of that research has yielded tangible direct benefits to society.

[Maynerd]

I'm not arguing that there is not an importance placed on grants and publishing and in *some* cases it's too important. I'm saying the blanket statement that colleges care more about it than student achievement is a hyperbole.

Hyperbole? Somewhat.

If you're on a college faculty, what gets you advanced? What gets you tenure? It's not the achievement of your students. It's research grants and publication. They say "publish or perish," but there's no mention of "give those students an outstanding classroom experience or perish." It's simply not the school's priority. On a typical college campus, where will you find the most senior instructors? Not in a classroom. If the primary goal was student achievement, wouldn't you think your most advanced staff would spend most of their time in a student-exposure setting?

Plus the idea that educators as a group don't care about student achievement is absurd.

It's not that they don't care, but it's nowhere near the top of their list of priorities. None of them are clamoring for small class sizes, for the elimination of lecture halls, and none of them ever hand off their classes to a TA.

The object of the game seems to be getting OUT of the classroom. That's a mighty strange goal if the focus is on student achievement.

[Texsahara]

Hyperbole? Somewhat.

If you're on a college faculty, what gets you advanced? What gets you tenure? It's not the achievement of your students. It's research grants and publication. They say "publish or perish," but there's no mention of "give those students an outstanding classroom experience or perish." It's simply not the school's priority. On a typical college campus, where will you find the most senior instructors? Not in a classroom. If the primary goal was student achievement, wouldn't you think your most advanced staff would spend most of their time in a student-exposure setting? It's not that they don't care, but it's nowhere near the top of their list of priorities. None of them are clamoring for small class sizes, for the elimination of lecture halls, and none of them ever hand off their classes to a TA.

The object of the game seems to be getting OUT of the classroom. That's a mighty strange goal if the focus is on student achievement.

Again, you are stating your opinions as facts with nothing to back it up. If you have some evidence that professors are hardly in the classroom, show me. Maynerd says so is not reason enough. And what is your real point? Are you claiming that most colleges provide a poor education?

https://www.usnews.com/education/bes...e-most-classes

Among the 697 ranked colleges that submitted these data to U.S. News in an annual survey, Purdue University—West Lafayette in Indiana reported the highest percentage of graduate TAs who were listed as a primary instructor for undergraduate courses in fall 2015: 26 percent.

The 10 schools with the highest percentages were all public schools and National Universities, meaning they offer a full range of undergraduate programs as well as master's and doctoral degrees.

Among Regional Universities, which offer many undergraduate programs and some master's but few doctoral programs, Emporia State University in Kansas reported the highest percentage of TAs who taught classes in fall 2015, at 13 percent.

Overall, mainly National Universities and Regional Universities reported having TAs who teach classes – only two National Liberal Arts Colleges, which emphasize undergraduate education in the liberal arts and sciences, reported that TAs teach any courses, both at 2 percent. That's because many have low student-faculty ratios, so TAs aren't as necessary.

Of all the schools that reported these data to U.S. News, 544 listed zero percent.

I don't believe having TAs teach classes is some huge problem that needs solving either. TAs perform a productive function and can provide a positive learning experience. Of course there are cases where they are overused and not supervised well enough. That's a different kind of problem that should be addressed.

We all have our own anecdotal experiences. Maybe yours are influencing your opinion? My son just graduated in a STEM field from a huge research university. Over the course of four years, he had TAs teach three introductory classes and 5 labs. They also handled a lot of the office hours. His experience was not unique and he has no complaints.

[Maynerd]

And what is your real point? Are you claiming that most colleges provide a poor education?

Nope. I'm claiming that the education they provide is absurdly over-priced, and the mindset and priorities of a typical college should change drastically before we make the taxpayer responsible for paying the bill.

[Yankee Tripper]

If you're on a college faculty, what gets you advanced? What gets you tenure? It's not the achievement of your students. It's research grants and publication. They say "publish or perish," but there's no mention of "give those students an outstanding classroom experience or perish." It's simply not the school's priority. On a typical college campus, where will you find the most senior instructors? Not in a classroom. If the primary goal was student achievement, wouldn't you think your most advanced staff would spend most of their time in a student-exposure setting?

This is true of some but not all colleges.


There are a great many colleges and major fields of study where the "research driven publish or perish" are simply not the focus.


Both of my kids are engineering majors, one at a public state university, one at a small private college. Neither one is taught by T.A.s, both have average class size under 30, and neither has more than a small handful of professors where research supersedes teaching each one has access to their professor outside of lecture.

[Maynerd]

This is true of some but not all colleges.


There are a great many colleges and major fields of study where the "research driven publish or perish" are simply not the focus.


Both of my kids are engineering majors, one at a public state university, one at a small private college. Neither one is taught by T.A.s, both have average class size under 30, and neither has more than a small handful of professors where research supersedes teaching each one has access to their professor outside of lecture.

Fully agree. I'm not casting aspersions on the entire education industry. My apologies if my comments come off that way. But, it's important to note that a great many colleges and universities DO have a publish or perish mindset. And, to me, that's a problem if you want to use tax dollars to send kids to those schools.

Before we open the taxpayer checkbook, there need to be well-defined standards for the students to maintain, and some sort of accountability on the parts of the colleges.

My point is that "free tuition for all" is a massive oversimplification. And, unless and until we redefine the processes and priorities under which colleges operate, it's an inappropriate use of tax dollars.

It's a good goal. It's just not as simple as paying the tuition check. And I believe that part of the process to lead to this goal needs to be an assessment of the collegiate education system. Just because our myriad collection of colleges and universities, public and private, is what we have had for generations does NOT mean this is the best model if it's all to become taxpayer-funded.

[JL25and3]

Fully agree. I'm not casting aspersions on the entire education industry. My apologies if my comments come off that way. But, it's important to note that a great many colleges and universities DO have a publish or perish mindset. And, to me, that's a problem if you want to use tax dollars to send kids to those schools.

Before we open the taxpayer checkbook, there need to be well-defined standards for the students to maintain, and some sort of accountability on the parts of the colleges.

My point is that "free tuition for all" is a massive oversimplification. And, unless and until we redefine the processes and priorities under which colleges operate, it's an inappropriate use of tax dollars.

It's a good goal. It's just not as simple as paying the tuition check. And I believe that part of the process to lead to this goal needs to be an assessment of the collegiate education system. Just because our myriad collection of colleges and universities, public and private, is what we have had for generations does NOT mean this is the best model if it's all to become taxpayer-funded.

I can’t prove this at all, but I suspect that the philosophy where teaching is sacrificed to research is less prevalent in public colleges than in private ones. I know my sister teaches at UC Riverside, and while she’s always writing grants and doing research, she also teaches every term.

[Maynerd]

I can’t prove this at all, but I suspect that the philosophy where teaching is sacrificed to research is less prevalent in public colleges than in private ones.

I have little doubt. But, if someone proposed "free tuition, but only to public colleges" there would be an immediate outcry of racism and class strata. Only the rich would be able to afford to send their kids to sexy private schools, and that wouldn't be fair to the less-well-off, who would be forced to send their kids to the crummy public schools. It'd be the same argument used to oppose allowing tax dollars to subsidize private schools for K-12.

So, "free tuition" will undoubtedly apply to both the schools focused on teaching kids and the schools focused on publishing overpriced textbooks.

[JL25and3]

I have little doubt. But, if someone proposed "free tuition, but only to public colleges" there would be an immediate outcry of racism and class strata. Only the rich would be able to afford to send their kids to sexy private schools, and that wouldn't be fair to the less-well-off, who would be forced to send their kids to the crummy public schools. It'd be the same argument used to oppose allowing tax dollars to subsidize private schools for K-12.

So, "free tuition" will undoubtedly apply to both the schools focused on teaching kids and the schools focused on publishing overpriced textbooks.

I don’t see why that would be the case. No one’s demanding free tuition for private K-12 schools.

[Yankee Tripper]

I don’t see why that would be the case. No one’s demanding free tuition for private K-12 schools.

Except Betsy Devos and her ilk. Well not free but tax payer subsidized.

[Maynerd]

Except Betsy Devos and her ilk. Well not free but tax payer subsidized.

Exactly my point. Yet, somehow, you're championing tax payer subsidized tuition for college. If it's a bad idea for kids under 17, how can it be a good idea for kids 18 and over?

[Yankee Tripper]

Exactly my point. Yet, somehow, you're championing tax payer subsidized tuition for college. If it's a bad idea for kids under 17, how can it be a good idea for kids 18 and over?

Where did I say private college should be subsidized?

[Texsahara]

I have little doubt. But, if someone proposed "free tuition, but only to public colleges" there would be an immediate outcry of racism and class strata. Only the rich would be able to afford to send their kids to sexy private schools, and that wouldn't be fair to the less-well-off, who would be forced to send their kids to the crummy public schools. It'd be the same argument used to oppose allowing tax dollars to subsidize private schools for K-12.

So, "free tuition" will undoubtedly apply to both the schools focused on teaching kids and the schools focused on publishing overpriced textbooks.

I guess I just assumed we were only talking about public colleges. That's what the states that have started tuition free programs have done. Never crossed my mind that it would be anything else.

[Maynerd]

I guess I just assumed we were only talking about public colleges. That's what the states that have started tuition free programs have done. Never crossed my mind that it would be anything else.

So, how long until there's an outcry that only the rich can afford the good schools, and that the whole system is racist, and we need to send kids to the school of their choice on the taxpayer's dime? I'd guess the call about unfairness would begin before a system was even implemented.

[Texsahara]

So, how long until there's an outcry that only the rich can afford the good schools, and that the whole system is racist, and we need to send kids to the school of their choice on the taxpayer's dime? I'd guess the call about unfairness would begin before a system was even implemented.

First, there are many, many excellent public colleges. So I have no reason to think that would be the case and have not heard so much as a peep about it in regards to the new free tuition program in NY. Aside from the voucher crowd, I guess I don't hear nearly as much of that about K-12 as you apparently do. People want their kids to go to good schools and I hear a lot of people speak out over the disparity in public school and for good cause. I think your fears are unfounded. And even if they are not, it's not a reason to pass on tuition free public college.

[JL25and3]

So, how long until there's an outcry that only the rich can afford the good schools, and that the whole system is racist, and we need to send kids to the school of their choice on the taxpayer's dime? I'd guess the call about unfairness would begin before a system was even implemented.

Why would you think that would happen? Again, has there ever been an outcry that private K-12 schools should be free for all because public schools are? (DeVos-style vouchers aren't anything like that.)

As I've said many times, not all slopes are slippery. And even if it is - although there's not a shred of evidence to think so - that's an argument against the bottom of the slope, not the top. Free or subsidized higher education doesn't become a bad idea because "give them an inch and they'll want a mile." Sometimes you can just give them an inch without having to give everything anyone asks for. It happens all the time.

What you're suggesting is that it would be better not to give anyone anything, because they won't see it as something that helps even the playing field but as something that puts them at more of a disadvantage. Really, given this reasoning, the solution would be to stop all public education. It's time to teach these people that there's no free lunch. You want to go to first grade, take some responsibility for it.