Even the leftists over at the Wall Street Urinal are beginning to understand that college is not worth the expense
Is This the End of College as We Know It?
The language throughout this article is padded with the usual leftist drivel. This paragraph comes to mind: "Faith in the four-year degree traces back to the 1960s, when Civil Rights activists pushed for everyone to attend college and become a professional. Instead of steering students toward a pragmatic, though often racist and classist, two-track system in which some high-school graduates headed to college and others became apprentices in a trade, the nation set a course for something more aspirational: college for all." No analysis as to why the two-track system was racist or classist, just the assumption that it was. This is the status of our present-day media, with lots of unsupported opinions, few facts.
What was stupid was the federal government involving itself in the college system by offering funds to potential college students who often did not have the intellectual capacity to use the college education or obtain a full college degree. This was a form of entrapment, catching students with IQs lower than necessary to utilize a college education with the fantasy of a "good job" at the end of the college rainbow. For a short while this worked, but as more and more below college capable students entered the college market, the more classes turned from college level to high school remedial level. The result is today, over 60% of all college students need remedial education during their first year or two to be able to work at the college level. This is obvious K-12 malpractice, but the pressure is not on K-12 to improve the quality of education but instead to pressure even less qualified students to enroll in college, increasing the number of students with huge loan amounts and little to show for the expense and debt.
The article fails to discuss the failure of K-12 which is the place we need reforms the most. College focused students should graduate high school with one year of college-level course work. An example would be that chemistry students should graduate with a full year of college major chemistry not just multiple years of ad hoc science-related high school coursework.
Unfocused high school students should either head off to first rung jobs or head into vocational programs. Schools, counselors, parents should all view these options as equal to or superior to college with its myriad problems and high debt issues.
"Rachael Wittern earned straight As in high school, a partial scholarship to college and then a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. She is now 33 years old, lives in Tampa, earns $94,000 a year as a psychologist and says her education wasn’t worth the cost. She carries $300,000 in student debt.
Dr. Wittern’s 37-year-old husband worked in a warehouse for several years before becoming an apprentice electrician. He expects to earn comparable money when he’s finished—minus the debt. When and if they have children, Dr. Wittern says her advice will be to follow her husband’s path and avoid a four-year degree.
“I just don’t see the value in a lot of what I studied,” she says. “Unless they have a really specific degree in mind we’d both prefer they take a more pragmatic, less expensive route.”
For traditional college students, the American postsecondary education system frequently means frontloading a lifetime’s worth of formal education and going into debt to do it. That is no longer working for millions of people, and the failure is clearing the way for alternatives: Faster, cheaper, specialized credentials closely aligned with the labor market and updated incrementally over a longer period, education experts say. These new credentials aren’t limited to traditional colleges and universities. Private industry has already begun to play a larger role in shaping what is taught and who is paying for it.
For more than a century, a four-year college degree was a blue-chip credential and a steppingstone to the American dream. For many millennials and now Gen Z, it has become an albatross around their necks.
Millennials are the most educated generation in the nation’s history, but they are broke compared with their predecessors. So why would they direct their children to take the same path?
“They probably won’t,” says John Thelin, a historian of higher education and professor at the University of Kentucky.
Schools around the world are slowly adopting artificial intelligence to better tailor teaching to individual kids. One program maps a student's mastery of math; another assesses literacy and screens for dyslexia. Critics are skeptical that this technology is as effective as promised. Could surveilling students in this way do more harm than good?
Faith in the four-year degree traces back to the 1960s, when Civil Rights activists pushed for everyone to attend college and become a professional. Instead of steering students toward a pragmatic, though often racist and classist, two-track system in which some high-school graduates headed to college and others became apprentices in a trade, the nation set a course for something more aspirational: college for all.
High schools began to direct students toward college-prep classes and away from vocational training. The federal government started lending money to many more students to pay for college. Universities grew into manicured playgrounds. The proportion of Americans with a four-year college degree climbed to 36% last year from 9% in 1965.
But those gains came at a price. For every high-school student who graduates college and finds a job that leverages her degree, four fall short: They either never enroll in college, drop out, or graduate and wind up underemployed, says Oren Cass, executive director of American Compass, a conservative think tank. About half take on debt they come to regret, according to surveys. For millennials, college or bust created winners out of about 20% of the country’s students, and bust for the rest, Mr. Cass says.
What has embittered so many millennials is that they played by the rules and still got stuck. Ben Puckett, a 30-year-old pastor in Michigan, earned a B.S. in physical therapy before a Master’s degree in divinity. He is $95,000 in debt.
“I went to college because I was told by parents, friends, teachers and counselors that it was the only way to ensure a good future,” Mr. Puckett says. “At 18 years old, how was I supposed to defy what my school, parents, society, friends were saying about going to college?”
College graduates born in the 1980s are less able to build wealth compared with earlier generations. Since 2013, student debt has grown by around $600 billion.
The flagging value proposition is now catching up to colleges.
Between 1979 and 2010, enrollment at two- and four-year colleges and universities more than doubled to 18 million. Since then it has fallen by about 2 million as the number of high-school graduates shrinks and the return on investment for graduates flattens.
To adapt, more schools are offering larger tuition discounts, forcing many of them to cut costs, edging them closer to a death spiral. The pandemic and the resulting economic anxiety have accelerated these trends. Many colleges are unable to adapt their programs and to keep up with changing demands in the labor market. Hundreds of schools will close over the next few years, analysts predict.
Americans aren’t turning their backs on education; they are reconsidering how to obtain it. Enrollment in short-term credential classes during the pandemic increased by 70% to nearly 8 million over the same period last year, according to Jonathan Finkelstein, chief executive of Credly, a digital credentialing network. That increase came as freshman college enrollment dropped by 16%.
Coding boot camps, which started only a decade ago and teach students software skills in a few months, graduated around 30,000 students in the U.S. last year. The number of apprenticeships nearly doubled to more than 700,000 between 2012 and 2019, according to the Labor Department, and they are expanding beyond trades into white-collar industries like banking and insurance. California has plans in place to increase apprenticeships in the state to 500,000 from 75,000 by 2029.
Companies like Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp. are launching programs which certify vocational competence and lead to well-paying tech jobs in or outside their companies. In August, Google announced scholarships for 100,000 students for a six-month online certificate including one in data science. The company said it would treat the certificates as the equivalent of a four-year degree if students apply for a related role at Google.
As a critical mass of companies and nonprofits launch their own credentials that become valuable in the labor market, traditional colleges will lose their monopoly, says Christopher Dede, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education and the author of “The 60-Year Curriculum.”
“The minute you have enough groups from industry, or the military or nonprofits, validate these things, you provide a way of bypassing educational institutions, and that will open the door to people not having to get a bachelor’s degree as a warrant to enter the workplace,” Mr. Dede says.
The question is whether this model can supplant the massive symbolic value of a four-year degree earned straight after high school. A 2019 Kaplan Inc. survey of 2,000 parents found that 74% favor a pathway for students to go straight from high school to a full-time job while taking college classes.
“ College-for-all has been a catastrophically bad system. It has to change. ”
— Oren Cass, executive director of American Compass, a conservative think tank
What’s missing from this rising model is the sort of coming-of-age experience that students crave. Still, the pandemic has chipped away at the belief that it must take place through a four-year stint on a college campus. Groups of students unable to return to campus this year have rented houses and hotels to live with their classmates while taking classes online.
Elite schools like Harvard and Yale University will survive and even thrive but will occupy a smaller place in the popular imagination, much like prep schools today, says Johns Hopkins political scientist Benjamin Ginsburg.
Less elite schools trying to stay relevant have begun offering shorter programs and creating longer partnerships with students, such as giving alumni the chance to brush up on skills through online classes. Four-year degrees will get telescoped into three and eventually two years, says Scott Pulsipher, president of Western Governors University. Academic credit will increasingly be given for work experience, and workers will return to school more frequently as the half-life of their skills shortens because of the accelerating pace of technological change.
The shift will eventually generate Americans with more education from a broader array of institutions. That will create pressure for public funding to follow the education people want, says Mr. Cass, author of “The Once and Future Worker.” Federal and state governments subsidize colleges and universities with hundreds of billions of dollars. That money benefits just a sliver of students. What about everybody else?
Mr. Cass argues students should be able to apply to whatever type of education or training they want to pursue. “College-for-all has been a catastrophically bad system,” he says. “It has to change.”
Youth is wasted on young fools.
"Why are cities so uniformly far to the left politically? Some hypotheses:
1. They attract the educated professionals who are on the left. But suburbs also attract educated professionals, and they are not so uniformly left.
2. They create many more externalities, and you can only tolerate living there if you have faith in government. The more dense the population, the more potential there is for some people to harm others, and the less likely it is that the people harming one another know one another well enough to resolve the issue on their own. The example I use is a noisy party that disturbs other people. If it happens in a small town, you have a discussion among the neighbors. If it happens in an apartment building, you call the police.
3. Cities have more division of labor. This selects for people who are less oriented toward doing things for themselves, which in turn selects for people who want more government.
4. Cities have more wealth that can be extracted by government. Winning public office can be more profitable in a city, so more ambitious people run for mayor of a big city than run for mayor of Podunk."
We are in the midst of the anti-urban revolution. This will take a while, but in the end, it will allow us to return to a more normal, less totalitarian political position if we do not have a civil war before we can get to that outcome.
I, too, feel as if I am a traveler transported across vast time and space to an alternative Earth in an alternative time
Desperation and the Quest for Control: The Dangers of Alternative Medicine - Quillette
Non-science based medicine are cults. These cults are deeply dangerous. These cults kill people every year, yet people, primarily women, continue to become adherents because they have decided to step away from reformed western religions instead they embrace unreformed, highly dangerous cults.
The loss of religion by the west has been a continuing disaster that is not yet done with us.
Thankfully we will always have YouTube videos of Black Friday Shopping Riots to remind us of the good old days
Politically retracted study from Johns Hopkins, “[I]n contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”
Johns Hopkins Study Saying COVID-19 Has 'Relatively No Effect on Deaths' in U.S. Deleted After Publication
Why retract such a study? Because it is too politically transgressive.
Published papers and data on ineffectiveness of lockdowns and the huge harms they cause
TWENTY+ LOCKDOWN LACK OF EFFICACY PAPERS & ANALYSES:
Note: also go to Collateral Global
Collateral Global MILLION DOLLAR SOCIAL DISTANCING
The only remaining question is how long before the progressives/Dems grow up, accept personal responsibility and agency? Never would be the correct answer. When she breaks the rules, Pelosi does not accept responsibility for her actions; she blamed the hair salon owner and her hairdresser. Why, because Pelosi is a weak woman and a coward incapable of accepting personal responsibility just like the rest of the progressives/Dems.
Doctors warn US will see 'darkest days' after Thanksgiving
What if there is no new pandemic? Will they STFU? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Nope. To be a progressive one must love being not just wrong but anti-science.
When Will Biden Denounce Efforts To Silence Dissent? — Manhattan Contrarian
The fascist Democrats will not accept that any opinion that contradicts their own opinions is valid; instead believing it is heresy, which must be eliminated from the body politic. The fascist Dems are cultists, and fighting a cult is not the same as discussing opposing positions. The cults want blood and will get it unless they are opposed directly and the only likely way this will happen is Civil War. This is likely to get ugly, fast.
"While Joe Biden issues calls for “unity” in the aftermath of the election, the effort to silence conservative and Republican voices proceeds apace. We have just had a bitter election season, and I would very much like to support and join calls for unity and reconciliation. The problem is that the actions of the people who supported Biden undermine progress toward those goals, and make achieving them well nigh impossible. Where are the Democrats who denounce these actions? For that matter, where is Biden’s own denunciation of these actions?
It was back at the beginning of this blog that I first called out as a fundamental characteristic of the progressives — the people who seek to perfect the world through government action — that they come to believe that anyone who would oppose their project must be evil:
[S]ince [progressives believe that] all problems can be solved by taxing and spending, therefore they must be solved by taxing and spending, and anyone who stands in the way of those solutions is immoral.
And if your opponents are immoral and evil, all strategies and tactics to suppress them and extirpate them are justified and indeed necessary.
A couple of weeks ago I had a post with a short roundup of various instances of Biden and his supporters calling those who failed to support him either “racists”or “white supremacists” or both. The name callers I quoted were not some fringe characters who might appropriately be ignored, but rather leading figures and organizations of the Democratic Party, including the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and indeed Biden himself (who called President Trump a “racist” in the first debate this year).
But that post did not get to the next important issue, which is the effort to silence conservative and Republican voices and make sure that they cannot be heard. You may already be aware of some or all of these, but just putting a collection together in one place makes you realize how pervasive and dangerous this has become:
To begin, there have been the calls by prominent Democrats for identifying and punishing anyone who “supported” or “enabled” the Trump presidency. In the prior post I cited something called the “Trump Accountability Project,” initiated by Congresswoman AOC, which however appears to be suspended, at least for the moment. But there are plenty more of the same ilk, including this October 23 tweet from Robert Reich (former Secretary of Labor under Obama and current professor at UC Berkeley): “When this nightmare is over, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It would erase Trump’s lies, comfort those who have been harmed by his hatefulness, and name every official, politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe.”
From California Democratic Party official and DNC member David Atkins, we have these tweets on November 17: “No seriously...how *do* you deprogram 75 million people? Where do you start? Fox? Facebook? We have to start thinking in terms of post-WWII Germany or Japan. . . . This is not your standard partisan policy disagreement. This is a conspiracy theory fueled belligerent death cult against reality & basic decency.” In case you have your doubts that these people think that those who disagree with them are evil, try reading that again.
You have probably heard of “cancel culture,” and of at least a few efforts, particularly on college campuses, to get any dissent from the conservative side expelled from the campus; but unless you are paying close attention, you are probably not aware of the vast scope of this scourge. The National Association of Scholars has been keeping a spreadsheet of campus cancelations, which is now up to 105 entries. Included among the long list of professors who students have demanded be fired from their academic positions are such famous cases as Nicholas and Erika Christakis of Yale (for the sin of asking students to relax about Halloween costumes), Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto (for a video titled “Professor Against Political Correctness”), Brett Weinstein of Evergreen College (for showing up on a “day of absence” demanded of white students and teachers), Bruce Gilley of Portland State University (for writing the book “The Case for Colonialism”), Amy Wax of Penn Law School (for criticizing affirmative action in a podcast), Susan Crockford of the University of Victoria (for publishing data showing that polar bear populations are increasing), and many, many more.
Then there is the petition from students in the Harvard graduate school, demanding that members of the Trump administration not be hired or invited as speakers to the Harvard campus. From the Washington Post, November 19 (quoting the petition): “‘That is why today we are asking you to set up a system of accountability for high-level political appointees and Trump administration consultants before they are invited as fellows or to teach or speak on campus. . . . These accountability guidelines should be publicly shared with students by the end of the calendar year.’ The petitioners also call on the university to ‘fully vet speakers for their role in undermining’ democracy and either ‘boldly confront’ them for it or decline to invite them to the school at all.”
Next we have that group of conservative voices who suddenly find that they are being “de-platformed” or “de-monetized” by their big tech web hosts for nebulous “violations” that can’t be specified or articulated. I’m not talking about fringe or conspiracy theory sites here, but rather relatively or very prominent conservative voices that just seem to be getting too much traction. The most famous example occurred when the New York Post obtained a laptop computer belonging to Hunter Biden, and published a story on October 14 revealing certain of its contents. When the Post tried to circulate the story via a tweet, Twitter suddenly shut down its account. Twitter never offered a remotely acceptable explanation — the laptop was clearly genuine — but kept the Post’s account shuttered for about two weeks, right in the run-up to the election. Other examples of the same phenomenon include the Conservative Treehouse, which was informed on November 10 that it was being de-platformed by WordPress (“Given the incompatibility between your site’s content and our terms, you need to find a new hosting provider and must migrate the site by Wednesday, December 2nd.”); Dan Bongino, who was informed on November 18 that his website was being de-monetized by the Outbrain advertising service; and the Northern Virginia Tea Party, which was suspended from MailChimp several days ago for no articulated reason.
And then we have the active suppression of specific information inconvenient to the political fortunes of Democrats. Glenn Reynolds, prominent conservative blogger, has had a regular column at USA Today for several years. On October 20 Reynolds submitted a column on the subject of the Hunter Biden emails, and USA Today rejected it without explanation. (Reynolds later published the piece in the New York Post.). Several days later, well-known reporter Glenn Greenwald — definitely not a conservative — attempted to post a piece critical of Biden relating to the Hunter Biden situation, in particular eviscerating Biden’s official party line that the Hunter laptop was “Russian disinformation.” Greenwald found his piece rejected by the Intercept — a site he had co-founded; whereupon Greenwald determined to leave the Intercept and go out on his own.
The above compilation is just a small sampling of recent attempts at silencing.
The question is, how do you “reconcile” with people who would treat you and your legitimate opinions and political views in this manner? I don’t have an answer to that question.
But the first step must be for the people at the top — particularly Biden, and also Harris — to reject and denounce the Stalinism of many of their supporters. So far, they haven’t done it. I seriously doubt that they will ever do it, any more than they will denounce the widespread rioting and looting that has occurred in this country over the past several months. They don’t think they have to, and they think they can get away with it."