I remember how it was -- JR
Sunday, February 07, 2021
Our educational industrial complex is broken, time to reform higher education and student loans
Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in January 2020, but is particularly relevant today as the left demands student loan forgiveness transferring wealth from those who either did not go to college or have already paid their loans to those who are saddled with massive debt with degrees that equip them to flip burgers at McDonald’s.
By Richard McCarty
Our educational industrial complex is broken, and swift reform is needed. College costs continue to rise much faster than inflation, and too many students are plowing themselves into debt and wasting years of their lives pursuing pointless degrees. Upon leaving college, these students are often surprised to discover that their degrees have little value. Of course, most colleges are liberal indoctrination centers, where conservative voices are few and often drowned out.
It is time for the federal government – and state and local governments – to stop picking winners and losers. Just as it is unfair for the federal government to recognize the American Bar Association as the sole accreditor of law schools and allow it to erect unnecessary hurdles to keep people from pursuing law degrees; just as it is indefensible for governments to subsidize unreliable solar and wind projects that drive up electricity bills; just as it is illegitimate for state governments to license hair braiders and interior designers to lock competitors out of the field; just as it is improper for the federal government to grant immunity to credit reporting agencies in spite of their negligence and incompetence; just as it is wrong for governments to deny poor people due process and allow predatory towing companies to sell their cars when they cannot afford exorbitant towing fees; and just as it is improper for states to subsidize moviemaking; so it is wrong for the federal government to shovel money to colleges via student loans.
To begin to address these problems, the federal government should do four things: privatize student loans once again, sell off its portfolio of student debt, allow students to discharge college debt in bankruptcy, tie lending rules to the value of a degree and require colleges to repay half of the remaining value of discharged loans.
The first step is the federal government ending its own college loans, but it should also sell off its student loan portfolio, which is nominally worth more than $1.5 trillion. Unfortunately, more than 40 percent of student loans are considered to be “in distress.” Furthermore, according to one estimate, 40 percent of student loan borrowers may be in default in just three short years. If for no other reason, the federal government should sell off its student loan portfolio to stem its losses on these toxic assets.
In addition, Congress should pass legislation to once again allow former students to discharge college debt in bankruptcy if a borrower is unable to find a decent job years after leaving college. In the past, borrowers were allowed to do this, but bankruptcy laws were tightened after lobbying by the banks. One reason that conservatives should support allowing the use of bankruptcy to discharge crushing student debt is to allow more young people to move on with their lives. Conservatives are often dismayed that more young people are not moving out of their parents’ homes, marrying, buying a home, and having children – things which tend to make one more conservative.
One of the reasons for this situation is student debt. Unfortunately, bankruptcy for student debt is seen by some as merely a way of letting borrowers off the hook, but it should really be viewed as a way of holding lenders accountable. For years, government lenders have happily loaned money to unserious students and those who wish to pursue frivolous degrees.
Bankruptcy for student debt, plus privatization, would encourage lenders to be more prudent with their money.
Prudent regulation would tie lending practices to the value of a degree and job prospects in chosen fields. The fewer jobs available in a chose major, the riskier the loan.
Finally, colleges should be required to cover half of the outstanding loan balances when alums discharge debt in bankruptcy, thereby sharing the risk with lenders. Because colleges have been admitting unserious students, coddling and indoctrinating students, offering junk degrees, and cranking out graduates who are unprepared for the real world. Requiring colleges to reimburse banks for a portion of their losses would motivate colleges to stop trying to enroll anyone and everyone with a pulse. It should also lead to colleges cutting costs, eliminating pointless degrees, and focusing less effort on training social justice warriors and more on helping the next generation build the economy.
One way or another, our country needs less college debt, fewer college graduates with worthless degrees, and more trade school graduates, more apprentices, and more entrepreneurs. These straightforward reforms should help advance these goals while making a positive difference for students, parents, and taxpayers.
********************************
To Close the Skills Gap, Create Industry-Vetted Certificate Programs for Students
Even though experts believe college is still worth the cost, employers question the value to their businesses. Many believe college degrees do not provide graduates with the skills needed in today’s workplace.
In a 2014 survey of over 600 business leaders, only 11 percent strongly agreed that college graduates had the skills their companies needed. The majority believed that universities are not adequately preparing students. The gap has only widened since then. Employers expect more from college graduates.
The mismatch between college programs and the needs of the business community creates two problems for graduates. Many cannot find meaningful employment after graduating, and then they cannot pay off their student loan debt. Unfortunately, universities are doing little to address this issue.
So why aren’t colleges offering courses that teach students the skills employers want?
The answers lie with university faculty who make course and curriculum decisions. Without industry experience, faculty cannot teach workplace skills.
This problem is often more severe for STEM degree programs despite STEM grads’ higher salaries because of the large gap between theory and practice. Universities need to change their approach and work with the business community when they create new courses.
One way four-year colleges could make their degrees more valuable (and marketable) is by embedding skills-focused courses in degree programs.
By asking local and regional employers about the skills they need, college leaders can create certificate programs within a major that makes students more employable. It could be the future of higher ed.
Certificate programs are packages of four or more courses focused on specific employers’ needs that teach students in-demand skills. Colleges could also mandate an industry internship as part of a certificate program, so students gain relevant working experience. Many of those courses will require adjunct faculty who actively work in the business world. Academics seldom have the experience or the industry perspective needed to teach those more practical courses, as they connect theory with real-world application.
As COVID-19 affects the job market, many students and recent graduates will need to reconsider their career goals. Industry-vetted certificates can be an effective means for students to make changes. Many certificate programs already exist at the graduate level, but there is no reason not to embed these in more undergraduate programs. Industry-vetted certificates may be the 21st-century version of academic “minors.”
For example, even STEM disciplines such as biology, chemistry, and mathematics don’t guarantee a job. Many will need to return for graduate education to be marketable in the pharmaceutical, chemical, and med-tech industries. However, with embedded certificate programs such as Regulatory Affairs & Clinical Trials, Forensic Chemistry, or Data Mining & Analysis, undergraduate students are eminently employable even before completing their degree.
From my experience as a dean at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, one of the most successful certificate programs was Regulatory Affairs & Clinical Trials for biology students. It comprised five courses:
Drugs, Biologics, Devices, & Diagnostics,
Biostatistics,
Project Management,
Clinical Trials, and
Industry internship
Senior managers from Atlanta’s pharmaceutical, biomedical, and medical device industries vetted all courses in advance. Upon completing the certificate program, most students had job offers before graduation, often with the company where they interned. The pay range (often mid-$50,000) was at the high end of the scale for students with a bachelor’s degree. The university placement office played a significant role in arranging internships and preparing students for interviews.
Biology is a student-friendly STEM discipline that attracts many would-be medical students. Unfortunately, only the top 5 percent get accepted in medical school, and most biology graduates struggle to get a job with only a bachelor’s degree. A certificate program helps them find a decent job.
Cleveland State is one of the more progressive universities in creating certificate programs. Their online catalog lists 25 certificates from many departments—although only one requires an internship and none appear to be vetted by industry representatives—with some of them available to several different majors. The certificates range from chemistry and art and design offerings to business and biomedical engineering.
Lesser-known institutions like Cleveland State can make a name for themselves with certificates; they can’t compete with flagship universities on prestige, but industry collaboration can help them stand out.
Some believe today’s hiring managers expect too much of college graduates and that complaints of skill gaps are unrealistic. They feel employers keep raising the bar each year and are creating a barrier to entry. For example, a recent survey found over 60 percent of almost 100,000 full-time jobs for entry-level hires required at least three years of experience. Employers appear to want employees who have proven they can do the job. Recent graduates often see this requirement as a catch-22. Industry-vetted certificate programs that include internships might help address these concerns.
Adding certificate programs won’t be easy, however. The faculty will resist change. New courses and programs within most universities must originate from faculty and require approval by departmental, then college, and finally university curriculum committees—any one of which can veto the proposal. Those bureaucratic hurdles are the crux of the problem.
Most departments or colleges lack “champions” for certificate programs. A faculty member seldom sees the need for certificate programs because their experience is in the academy, not industry or business. Additionally, if someone within the department is not qualified to teach the course, faculty may fear an adjunct will displace an existing position. That fear is greater as COVID-19 budget crises have meant job cuts for faculty, both adjunct and tenure-track.
The applied nature of certificate programs relative to the traditional, theoretical focus of the academy presents another issue. Industry-focused classes are often unfairly viewed as “professional training” and considered by faculty as lacking rigor.
Another option for accommodating certificate programs is locating them within Colleges of Continuing and Professional Education based in most universities. This option has the advantage of making the program accessible to students who currently work in the industry, have a degree, and want to enhance their skill set to improve their lot in life.
Many CCPE already have industry-focused certificates such as Kennesaw State, University of Texas, and UCLA, but quality control is always a concern because none of them are accredited. An additional downside is that CCPE do not offer academic credit for their courses and are thus inaccessible to undergrads. Of course, leadership from the top can correct these limitations.
Unfortunately, after several years, even successful certificate programs can lose departmental curriculum committee support for some of the reasons mentioned above.
To stay viable, certificate programs need defenders in the departments that house them. Leadership changes or loss of its supporters frequently doom the program. Specialized certificate programs are fragile and hard to start, but they matter to students. Universities need to find ways to make these micro-credentialing programs sustainable.
In a visionary report titled “Deliberate Innovation, Lifetime Education,” Georgia Tech provost Rafael Bras envisions certificate programs as micro-credentials so employers can evaluate job seekers. However, “the future is now” and colleges need to work with local industry to develop and vet certificate programs.
Many previous examples focus on STEM disciplines, but certificates can enhance other degree programs. By embedding such programs within arts, humanities, and business degrees, universities become more relevant, and college degrees can be more valuable to graduates and employers.
***************************************
Schools: Biden Chooses Union Extortion Over Science
Throughout the 2020 presidential campaign, former Vice President Joe Biden repeatedly accused President Donald Trump of "ignoring the science" on Wuhan coronavirus and vowed, "science will always be at the forefront of my administration."
"It's hard to believe this has to be said, but if I'm elected president, I will always lead the way with science. I will listen to the experts and heed their advice. I will do the opposite of what we're seeing Donald Trump do every day," Biden tweeted on March 26, 2020.
In July 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released data-based guidance showing the virus has an extremely low spread rate in schools and stated with mitigation efforts, schools could be reopened for in-person learning. In January 2021, the American Academy of Pediatrics produced a similar study showing the same results: schools are safe for teachers and students.
President Biden seemed to listen to this science and vowed to reopen schools within 100 days of his new administration. Two weeks in, the heavily Democratic teachers unions have very different plans.
Teachers unions in San Francisco, Chicago, Northern Virginia and elsewhere are refusing to get teachers back into the classroom while continuing to move the goalposts on school reopenings.
First, they demanded funding for mitigation and safety efforts. In return, they received more than $70 billion through a series of congressional relief plans last year. Local districts have also poured in extra cash. Now, they want more.
Next, they demanded to be put at the front of the vaccination line – ahead of vulnerable seniors. They were granted special status and early eligibility for the vaccine. Now, they're refusing to go back to work until children are also vaccinated, knowing the vaccine hasn’t been FDA approved for individuals under the age of 14.
But do teachers really need to be vaccinated in order to safely go back to work? The answer, according to one of America’s leading scientists, is no.
"There is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated," CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said during an official White House briefing this week, flanked by the CDC logo. "Vaccinations of teachers is not a prerequisite for safely reopening schools."
Despite vowing to "follow the science," Dr. Walensky's comments prompted White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki to distance the administration and falsely argue the comments were made in a "personal capacity."
But while the White House gives into teachers unions' extortion efforts, saying schools can't reopen until a $1.9 trillion "relief package" is passed through Congress, children across the country are suffering. More specifically, the academic development of children with special needs or living in poor income households is being devastated. For many, there will be lifelong, permanent and irreversible damage.
In Fairfax County, Virginia, the failure rate among students is through the roof.
"A new internal analysis from Fairfax County Schools found an alarming increase in the number of students left behind by the switch to online learning. The percentage of middle and high school students getting F grades in two or more classes has jumped a stunning 83%, according to the 'Study of Teaching and Learning During the COVID 19 Pandemic,'" WUSA9 reports. "Students with disabilities are struggling even more. They've seen a 111% increase in children getting two or more F grades."
In Las Vegas, officials rushed to reopen as an alarming number of teenagers took their own lives.
"Since schools shut their doors in March, an early-warning system that monitors students' mental health episodes has sent more than 3,100 alerts to district officials, raising alarms about suicidal thoughts, possible self-harm or cries for care. By December, 18 students had taken their own lives," The New York Times reports. "The spate of student suicides in and around Las Vegas has pushed the Clark County district, the nation's fifth largest, toward bringing students back as quickly as possible."
Private schools have been open since the fall 2020 semester began, some even earlier. Public schools across the country, including in large Florida districts and small rural districts with limited resources, are open. There is no excuse to remain closed, and teachers who want to get back in the classroom are being held hostage.
Biden's refusal to stand up to the unions and his public rejection of his own CDC director proves his willingness to put politics, union donations and Democrat activism above the wellbeing of students. Follow the science? Only if the teachers unions go along with it.
***************************************
China’s Ministry of Education has issued another warning to students wanting to study in Australia
Chinese students have again been warned against studying in Australia in a move that could worsen the already strained relationship with Beijing.
State-owned media has reported that China’s Ministry of Education on Friday told students to make a “full risk assessment” about studying in Australia following reports of racism and concerns about the coronavirus pandemic.
“It noted that a series of vicious attacks on Chinese students that have happened recently in multiple places in Australia have posed a serious threat to their personal safety,” the Global Times wrote.
“The raging pandemic also makes international travel risky.”
Australian universities rely heavily on the Chinese, who make up the largest cohort of international students.
Beijing first cautioned students about racist incidents against Asians and the pandemic in June last year in the midst of Australia’s plans to allow international students to return to the country.
However, the burgeoning number of Australian citizens wanting to return from overseas and restricted quarantine capacity has thrown a spanner in the works of returning planeloads of international students to campuses nationwide.
The Global Times reported that the education department warning was evidence that Australia had “poisoned” the relationship with China.
Shanghai-based Australian scholar Chen Hong – who had his visa cancelled by Australian officials after an intelligence investigation – said the “worsening discrimination problem” that Chinese students face in Australia has reached “an alarmingly high degree”.
“The Australian government’s continuous attacks against China, which have been echoed by the media especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, has misguided the local Australian people to generate hostility toward the Chinese,” he said.
The Scanlon social cohesion study released this week found there was a “relatively high level” of negative opinion towards Asian Australians in 2020.
Three in five Chinese Australians responded the racism in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic was a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big problem’.
The UK and Canada have been raised as alternatives for Chinese students wanting to study overseas, heightening concerns from Australian universities that they could lose their pre-pandemic share of the market.
***********************************
My other blogs: Main ones below
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*******************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment