Rolling higher education into the shitbin thread

One FTSE 100 company in the UK has launched its own stand-alone degrees rubber stamped by a trad university and aims, in the future, to have degree-awarding powers of its own.

no link yet to the study on how for-profit universities apparently actually damage the earning potential of people who attend them?

Margaret Wente = the worst

xps, Pearson, validated by Royal Holloway.

I kind of want to become a stockbroker.

xp to tomboto

these two links give a (somewhat conflicting) overview of the data about private/for-profite ed and earnings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/11/the-obama-administrations-claim-that-72-percent-of-for-profits-programs-have-graduates-making-less-than-high-school-dropouts/

http://blog.ed.gov/2014/04/fact-too-many-career-training-programs-lead-to-low-wages-high-debt/

xp - plenty of stockbrokers went to my college and got essentially "sports car" degrees, in that what they majored in had nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of being a stockbroker

that's what i am thinking.... i have no love for finance, but i have other (more pro-social) small business ideas that i wouldn't want to pursue until i built up some savings and (lol) knew about business.

so like, not necessarily being a stock broker, but i am increasingly considering trying to find a place in the private sector workforce that is not related to writing or teaching, the things i always thought of as "my things." still researching this stuff -- maybe not so fruitful to discuss on ilx.

you don't learn how to run a small business by becoming a stockbroker. you do so by working for one, though it definitely varies by business type, but a lot of stuff is the same, ... or you just start one and learn by trial and error.

yeah that's a good point. i think i mostly want to just be financially solvent so i can think about taking risks.

i definitely get the sense that us small business ppl are definitely a minority on ilx

but let me tell you, my college education was very valuable in that it taught me how to fill out forms. Like, I'm pretty damn good at filling out forms. Finding the instructions for the forms. Determining which instructions and boxes are relevant and irrelevant ... being good at filling out forms is a really valuable professional skill.

so much of adulthood seems to be filling out forms.

no link yet to the study on how for-profit universities apparently actually damage the earning potential of people who attend them?

Again, it comes back to a massive failure of regulation and i don't think tightening the rules around funding and applying a 'gainful employment' metric that just looks at elevated earning potential comes close to solving it.

For-profit colleges probably do increase earnings potential, simply by virtue of people being able to apply to jobs that require college degrees, but if billions in federal funding is going to be ploughed into for-profit colleges, there has to be a much stronger regulatory framework for checking whether they're actually providing educational value as well. A lot of them are very good but clearly many that could meet the new criteria are still basically a waste of time and money. Stopping the GI bill funding courses with a 13% graduation rate is the easy part, tackling 'quality' in the for-profit and not-for-profit sector is much harder but absolutely essential in the long term if a degree is going to maintain any inherent value.

pro-tip - don't steal code :(

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/report-at-least-two-shot-on-ucla-campus.html

i read that the professor didn't steal code and the shooter was delusional

any murderer is delusional imho

so much of adulthood seems to be filling out forms.

Even when you aren't filling out forms, most of professional communication is an indirect form filling activity. You write justifications that become decision memoranda which are realized as a signature on a form. You give people directions that become the population of a form and the receipt of the form by some other processing entity, which turns completed forms into travel visas, work orders, bills of materials, etc. Information and communication tailored to make it possible for complete strangers to efficiently work "together."

I forget how I found it but we have a copy of this and it's neat: http://www.thamesandhudson.com/The_Form_Book/9780500515082

graduation rate is a shitty metric! all that does is penalize schools that let in the people with high school degrees who aren't prepared for college work. there's this enormous gap between "having a high school degree" and "being prepared for college".

but let me tell you, my college education was very valuable in that it taught me how to fill out forms. Like, I'm pretty damn good at filling out forms. Finding the instructions for the forms. Determining which instructions and boxes are relevant and irrelevant ... being good at filling out forms is a really valuable professional skill.

― sarahell, Thursday, June 2, 2016 6:10 AM (12 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

is this very david foster wallace esque

this is*

http://prospect.org/article/meanwhile-back-most-campuses

$$$$

less privileged undergraduates / graduates are gauche

good article, in sync with my ten-ish years teaching at public unis in the American Midwest.

Margaret Wente = the worst

Since I should back this up, I'll start by listing assertions that Wente does not back up in the article that reggie linked:
"student engagement is at an all-time low, according to numerous surveys.": none of which are listed
"Educating undergraduates is just about the last thing most professors want to do.": supported by one anecdotal quotation
" as enrolment soared, teaching loads - with the help of strong faculty unions - went down": no figures provided
"Of course there's prep time and marking and so on. But it's still not much.": no figures provided re hours. A 2/3 load doesn't sound unreasonable to me at all, even if I am not sure most seasoned profs are spending as much time as this guy says he is.
" Professors are rewarded not for turning out high-quality graduates, but for turning out books and papers - even if they are unread. "

and then just note how closely she followed this template in this piece. Maybe her professors should have taught her research and argumentative writing skills instead of getting high with undergrads?

She got caught plagiarizing again last month.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/inside-the-globe/public-editor-prose-must-be-attributed/article29749706/

Ugh.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-university-business-20160602-snap-story.html

and

https://www.aaup.org/article/does-academic-freedom-have-future#.V1SpPZMrKRt

(interesting mainly because of the source)

probably don't agree with 90% of this article, but its of interest as well:

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1430-why-faculty-searches-fail

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/06/for-profit-companies-nonprofit-colleges/485930/

A fairly slanted piece on 'online programme management'. Doesn't mention Laureate, for some reason, though i would have thought they'd be one of the market leaders in the US.

re. failed searches: once you have a your short list, things can get very personal, and the logic of those decisions would be inexplicable outside of that context (sometimes inexplicable in that context). It's never about just that search, but the next one, and the next one after that.

xp what do you mean by "slanted"?

It presents OPM in an unremittingly negative light when the reality is more nuanced. If universities are going to diversity into online delivery, it's ludicrous to expect each one to reinvent the wheel, with all the variable quality / expertise that would come with that.

OPM can vary from assisting with marketing to providing every element of curriculum design, courseware, platform and teaching (effectively running a distinct degree programme with the university just providing the badging) - and the pricing model reflects that variety. Metrics around pricing would almost always include retention and progression. If students don't stick with it (which is fairly unusual on some university-only online degrees) the company doesn't get paid.

Lots of very good universities in the US, UK and Canada have these kinds of relationships and, though there is scope for "predatory" behaviour, every university that does engage with the idea is putting their reputation on the line so has the ultimate incentive to make sure that what's being offered is of an appropriate standard.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-university-business-20160602-snap-story.html

The decline of the best public university systems in the country is fucking terrible for this country and to a certain extent the world.

The best part of this article? He correctly argues that the system is well fucked and he doesn't even have to bring up the NCAA!

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/06/for-profit-companies-nonprofit-colleges/485930/

A fairly slanted piece on 'online programme management'. Doesn't mention Laureate, for some reason, though i would have thought they'd be one of the market leaders in the US.

Gawker on the Laureate / Clinton connections:

http://gawker.com/the-clintons-have-a-for-profit-college-problem-of-their-1781631216

man, honorary chancellor, that's gotta be a sweet gig

https://twitter.com/LIU_FF

holy cow, this is nuts.

yeah, I really hope this backfires on them hard. Trying to understand what was going through the admin's head, like it had to be a power move rather than an attempt to permanently replace everyone, but it's just going to damage the university so much.

I think they were hoping this could be swiftly and efficiently blamed on the union, that students would turn against the faculty, the union would cave, and then be permanently weakened. Too soon to say but my gut is saying that it won't play out like this, especially since the selection of completely incompetent in-house scabs will make for irresistible hooks in the press. I mean it's clear that the university doesn't give a shit about anybody being educated and I think most students have a pretty good radar for that.

students are also pretty willing to not go to class in the name of just about anything

http://activehistory.ca/2017/03/shes-hot-female-sessional-instructors-gender-bias-and-student-evaluations/

this is not coddling related per se, but I guess this is the best thread for it? was thinking that some of the factors ppl have identified as causes of the polarising behavior discussed itt could also be factors here as well (treating students more like consumers with corresponding "the customer is always right" attitudes etc)

― soref, Friday, 31 March 2017 12:09 (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

One of the rolling academia threads would be the best place for that but, yeah, there's a mountain of literature on the uselessness of student evaluations, the factor discussed in that article being but one of the reasons. I'm just thankful that I now teach under Program Chairs who agree.

― My Body's Made of Crushed Little Evening Stars (Sund4r), Friday, 31 March 2017 12:39 (thirty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

A useful archive of some of the literature: http://studentevaluationsareworthless.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-student-evaluations-of-teachers-are.html

― My Body's Made of Crushed Little Evening Stars (Sund4r), Friday, 31 March 2017 12:40 (thirty-one minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I guess I don't think they're useless/worthless, since they can provide very valuable feedback. However, they can make or break your career when you are sessional, since departments sometimes use them as the sole measure of someone's teaching, which is a highly inappropriate use for them.

― My Body's Made of Crushed Little Evening Stars (Sund4r), Friday, 31 March 2017 12:41 (thirty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I can't find the rolling academia thread either so: I'm not sure that that Vimy Ridge incident couldn't have happened to a male professor tbh. As a (non-white and at-the-time young-looking) male instructor, I will note that in my first 2.5 years of teaching, I received plenty of challenges to my authority, ranging from students openly chatting throughout every class, no matter how many times I asked them not to; students who obviously plagiarized telling me aggressively "I'm not taking a zero" before slamming the door; a student asking repeatedly "where are you getting this information? Is it just from the Internet?" to the point where I started including bibliographies with my Powerpoint presentations; students refusing to leave my office after fighting a grade (for frankly worthless work) for 20-30 minutes...

― My Body's Made of Crushed Little Evening Stars (Sund4r), Friday, 31 March 2017 13:04 (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i work at a university. before getting my permanent job i was in the temp pool. one of my assignments was doing data entry on a batch of student evaluations for the linguistics department. some of the shit students would write would be crazy, in terms of being extremely negative about instructors who were broadly popular. was also strangely common for both male and female instructors to get comments about how cute or hot they were

― -_- (jim in vancouver), Friday, 31 March 2017 18:12 (eighteen seconds ago) Permalink

Yeah, I mean, I've got "Prof S has nice hair" in student feedback, and guys get chillis all the time on Ratemyprofessor, although I've no doubt that it happens more to women.

it was more common with women for sure

Aargh fuck kill

i had a friend who had something like that happen, an adverse tenure verdict from an admin above the department level hanging on selective readings of the teaching portfolio. but it was only partway through the process and i helped my friend defend himself more forcefully in the reply letters that the process allowed for, and he won out in the end by swaying the remaining parties to vote yes.

https://www.wired.com/story/a-weird-mit-dorm-dies-and-a-crisis-blooms-at-colleges/

At that point the administration began what it called a formal review, including one-on-one interviews with all house residents. Barnhart announced this process at 10 pm in a hastily called meeting with all house residents. In that meeting, the students asked Barnhart if they could have a lawyer present in the one-on-one interviews and were told they could not. Students in the house say these mandatory interviews felt like interrogations, with questions centering on whether drugs were sold or used in the house. “This was Lord of the Flies,” Johnson says. “They wanted us to turn on each other.”
After the review, the turnaround was deemed a failure and five sophomore Senior House students were referred to the disciplinary committee. The unconfirmed story around the house was that these students had, using a group chat application, arranged to buy cocaine for a party.

poll: which group chat app did the five MIT sophomores use to buy cocaine

MIT’s dismantling of Senior House is part of a nationwide trend on college campuses, a shift that places a premium on safety, orderliness, and minimal bad publicity above all. Experts trace the roots of this shift to the 1980s. Since then, college tuition has skyrocketed and with it the competition for students who can afford it. Parents footing the bill are paying a lot more attention. The world has become more litigious and more corporate. All of this has led to an atmosphere in which university administrations have little margin for error when it comes to student safety or even bad publicity. And in this risk-averse atmosphere, places like Senior House, Eclectic, and Ricketts are increasingly viewed as unacceptable liabilities. “I first noticed this paternalistic ethos when I was doing some lectures at Vanderbilt University,” says sociologist Frank Furedi of the University of Kent and author of the book What’s Happened to the University? “There were all these campaigns being organized across America against drinking beer,” he says. “And I remembered that when I was in college the whole point was to get drunk.”

this all strikes me as so depressing and stupid and war-on-drugs pointless, it doesn't have any positive impact on the overall culture of our 17-24 year old campus set whatsoever, just forces the weird kids to live with more people who don't like them or understand them. Grrrr.

http://quillette.com/2018/03/02/academic-mob-fatal-toll/