The AWS Associate and Professional Architect certifications together costs $450. 12 months of self-study from knowing nothing about computers, and many have done it in less. Compare them (although this is not the best metaphor) to an Associate’s and Bacehlor’s degree. You would certainly earn as much...probably quite a bit more.
The study materials for those exams, worst case, bring the total to $750.
So $750 vs $50,000 for a modestly priced 4 year university.
Can anyone in intellectual good faith argue that the latter system is going to survive outside of the very short term?
Not sure if you've ever actually taken those certs (I have those + Sysops Associate) but they're just glorified multiple choice quizzes. In my experience hiring, they reveal relatively little about one's abilities to do meaningful work. They're more like the SAT than a degree.
Until the tech industry forms meaningful professional organizations with legal protections like law and medicine, these certs will be resume garnish compared to a degree.
That sounds like not only putting the cart before the horse but an entife stable. The certifcation is to serve the profession not the other way around.
You talk about survival in the long term yet you talk about getting certifications for technologies that can become obsolete after 5 years (although AWS, specifically, will probably be around for a while). Also I’m almost positively certain that if you do this certification without knowing nothing about computer when starting, as you say, good luck finding jobs for anything that would deserve the « architect » title.
Also going to university isn’t 50 000$ everywhere, this is mainly a weird US thing. I am a firm believer in the importance fundamental CS education, and picking up AWS from there shouldn’t be hard if that fundamental education was any good.
Yet when I went to University they were teaching Java/Pascal. What got me a job was learning more relevant subjects things on my own. Virtualization, Cloud, Containers, Python, Shell scripting.
Yeah I'll add my voice to the "University is overpriced and ancient" vote.
$750 vs $50,000 for a modestly priced 4 year university.
If absolutely nothing else, that $50,000 almost always includes room, utilities (electricity, water, high-speed internet, cable,) furniture, at least 3 meals a day, medical care, and a gym.
So you'd need to add the cost of those to the $750 for it to be a fair comparison.
To me, part of the problem is the supply of colleges. There's so many of them! Every state has their big state schools, and their smaller, private, low acceptance rate "institutions". But then there's a billion small schools that no one has every heard of, and I'm not sure who is even going there. But I may be biased and don't understand having gone to a big state school.
Maybe they were created to fill demand that is now drying up. But if you search for any US state like: "Ohio colleges", google will show you "100+ more colleges" for majority of states.
Ohio is an interesting case. Any "high school" student that can't get an appropriately difficult class at their local school can take the class at a nearby college for both high school and college credit simultaneously. It is paid for by the state of Ohio.
It is obviously a really good thing for smart students in small towns and rural school districts and probably a big reason Ohio has a lot of small colleges, though in recent years Ohio has allocated a pool of money to pay for it all and when it runs out (it always runs out), then you have to pay for the classes yourself.
Is that unusual? I've heard of other states having similar programs. When I was a teenager in Pennsylvania, my time during the school day was split between highschool and community college (paid for by the state or school district, I don't recall.
It's a good system, though few bothered to take advantage of it. I was one of 4 or 5 kids in my grade that took advantage of the system, even though there were dozens of better students than me who doubtlessly qualified.
High Schools & colleges near me partner for this sort of thing, though I don't think there's a lot of state funding to support it. It's unfortunate, since data generally shows that students who get a head start in that way are much more likely to graduate.
There's a very strong correlation between students who sign up for those kinds of classes and who would've otherwise gone onto the college pathway anyway.
Yes, but there's also a strong correlation for students who are forced into those courses due to mandatory "bridge" programs for under-prepared students. Source:I work in higher education analytics
I'm not from Ohio; where I grew up if such a program existed I didn't know about it. But I also attended a high school with almost 3000 students that had a very large selection of courses.
In terms of a full college enrollment scenario, i.e., everyone goes to college, there wouldn't be enough supply. About 70% of HS grads start college, and considering many stop out along the way, we're way off from college having the sort of enrollment that High School has. However, enrollment has been increasing steadily. The rate at which students attend college has increased about 10% since 2000. In that sense, as long as we don't add to the inventory of colleges, gradual enrollment growth will fill the ranks of existing colleges.
However, the above assumes that the value proposition of college in society doesn't significantly change. There are pointers that it is. Although the problem is there isn't any alternative ready for it to switch to en mass. If people doubt the value proposition today, they're left with not going at all, which is a worse value proposition, or looking at something like a trade school-- that's a perfectly reasonable option, but issues of social perception/prestige make it less attractive, and many trades have low salary caps. A "medical assistant" tops out around $45k for example, though the more rigorous "physicians assistant" can pay up to double that. But overall, trades are fairly likely to have a firm ceiling on wages. Not that graduating college as an English major is always going to pay more, it's just that there's less of a ceiling baked in to it. (Though I'd argue the floor is much lower, like $10/hour barista low)
And in cities like that, $15 an hour goes about as far as $10 in a more suburban area with a lower cost of living. I mean, I could have said "COL adjusted minimum wage", but I think the point was fairly clear.
The other challenge with the trades is that they are more subject to the boom and bust cycles than the jobs that a liberal-arts degree qualifies you for. When construction is hot, it's hot, but when the market turns, a lot of those companies that were employing 20 electricians drop to just 5-7. That's less common in social work, law/medicine, government and non-profit, etc.
Most liberal arts colleges are elaborate play centers for post adolescents that also offer classes. My own Alma mater, Washington & Lee, esp. matches that. I am not sympathetic.
I had great classes but I could have gotten the same education without the fluff. I bet without the fluff the cost would have been half or even cheaper.
It’s fine when wealthy people pay $200k for their children to have extended playtime crafting sculptures and writing papers. It’s extremely depressing when the poor are convinced to take out enormous loans to finance such playtimes, which then ruin their lives.
I simply can’t feel sorry for an industry that yokes 18 year olds with $200k+ in loans for undergraduate degrees, especially in useless subjects. The faster there is consolidation the better.
$200k for an undergrad degree is very far outside the norm. Don't get me wrong, the norm is still pretty shit. But it's about an order of magnitude less shit than that.
> As of June 2018, Forbes reported that total US student debt was $1.52 trillion and that 44.2 million people owed debt.[3] The average student debt is $38,390. The median student debt is between $10,000 and $25,000, while 2% of borrowers owe $100,000 or more.
> $200k for an undergrad degree is very far outside the norm. Don't get me wrong, the norm is still pretty shit. But it's about an order of magnitude less shit than that
That may be, but when the 6 year graduation rate is only 60% thats a lot of people paying "still pretty shit" in exchange for actually nothing.
I agree. That's why I said it's still pretty shit. I don't think hyperbole helps the situation though. Exaggerating the statistics isn't the right way to seek change.
95% of my college education was listening to the professor lecture with chalk and a chalkboard, taking notes, doing the homework, going over the homework with fellow students and the TA. The dorms were pretty spartan. The fun was hanging out with one's fellow students.
Even if they add little, they're bright shiny objects that attract attention when visiting & deciding to attend a school. Usage of them afterwards is almost besides the point. And that has created an arms race of bright shiny facilities to avoid falling behind competition.
This is how the article describes the focus of the article.
The buildings are severe 1970s concrete. The radio station is in a yurt. ... if you’re used to the grassy quads of state flagships or the rich Gothic and brick of the Ivy League, Hampshire’s austerity is striking. On my visit in the spring, tarps covered study carrels in the library to protect them from a leaky roof.
I went to a liberal arts school for undergrad. The emphasis on writing has been very important to my career- I've found as I've advanced in my career as an engineer, being able to write well has helped in writing design documents, pitching ideas and in lots of other ways. It's funny, because at a time when the liberal arts skills are maybe more valuable than ever, liberal arts schools seem to be concerned less with what makes them valuable.
I completely agree with this. I had a similar experience. Those soft skills are invaluable for explaining concepts and proposals in crisp coherent ways.
Me: Why does your [38 year old] sister hate your parents so much? She has a real chip on her shoulder, doesn't she?
Friend: Well..long story short, they refused to continue to pay for her college, cutting her off at the end of her sophomore year. She couldn't afford to continue on her own, and she feels betrayed, and that it set her back decades.
Me: That really sucks..now I get it. They're bastards! So, where did she go?
This is what community colleges are for. You can get a decent education at a fraction of the cost. Your degree won't stroke your ego, but you'll come out with an employable skill set, and you can always transfer credits to a state school to finish your bachelor's degree.
First, it's not about colleges, it's about a case study on one specific cool hippy college that has no majors, no structure, a handful of semi-known graduates, and 13 students in the recent freshman class and (they think) probably 0 in the next.
Article has problems. Look at this:
> Depending on the state, needier students will usually pay less at a liberal arts college than they would at a state flagship. It sounds counterintuitive, but choosing a public school to save money is actually a privilege for the affluent.
It then clarifies:
> A survey of 405 private nonprofit four-year colleges by the National Association of College and University Business Officers found that though the average tuition rate was $38,301.
Average tuition at private colleges is $38,301, and it's more expensive at a state college?
I think not. What state colleges charge more than $38,301 tuition? Rhode Island has the highest at $39,029 for both tuition and fees. The $38,301 private average is tuition only. Or you can pay $12,363 on average for tuition in North Dakota. According to https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/state/.
State colleges are dramatically less expensive in every single state than private colleges, especially for in-state students. The article's claim is so absurd that it demolishes the credibility of the entire piece.
I have to point out a little pedantic irony here and let the crowd obliviate me if warranted.
You're poking at the lack of science knowledge and then immediately misuse "your". I'm not a grammar nazi but I think this underlines that we're all good and bad at various things.
0. "Most degrees add little value compared to their current cost. We are talking about dollars here. Cost to get a degree vs. premium degree holders command for their labor." (initial text)
1. Most degrees add little [premium degree holders command for their labor] compared to their current cost. (textual substitution)
2. Most degrees add little premium degree holders command for their labor compared to [cost to get a degree]. (textual substitution)
3. Most degrees add little premium [that] degree holders command for their labor compared to [the] cost to get a degree. (add connecting words)
4. Most degrees add little premium that degree holders command for their labor compared to the cost to get [that] degree. (clarify "a degree")
5. [>50% of] degrees add little premium that degree holders command for their labor compared to the cost to get that degree. (definition)
"After adjusting for inflation and the time value of money, the net cost of college is negative $500,000, roughly double what it was three decades ago."
This is a reference for college being a net win to the tune of $500K. The interesting bit is that it's largely because the wages of high school graduates have greatly eroded.
"Men with bachelor's degrees earn approximately $900,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with bachelor's degrees earn $630,000 more."
Of course medicine, law, and engineering degree holders earn a lot more. But all you have there is an average. Even then, it's an average that ignores opportunity cost.
Completely agree and I think it will happen. At the very least we need an alternative path to get a university level education.
My idea of how it will be replaced:
All learning will be done online and by independent organizations which could range from small time publishers to even people on youtube creating courses. Students will self-study or use other methods to learn.
Each discipline will have its own certification. If you want to display your knowledge of xyz subject then you get that certification and employers will hire people based on their collection of certifications. Employees could build up their certifications as they progress in their career, life-long learning.
The entire system will be more or less free-market based but overtime I could see dominant organizations taking most of the market. The strongest will rise to the top.
You can already see this happening in high-demand fields like tech where you have these "code camps" springing up and then all the little certifications being offered by google, amazon and so on. My vision is this type of system will become the dominant way to obtain specialized skills. Traditional education will have to compete within this system.
College is mostly signaling. In tech it is easy enough to have rigorous job interviews and do away with signaling, but most professions aren't able to do that.
Currently that signaling is very valuable. The earnings gap between high school graduates and college graduates is apparently larger than it has ever been.
However, universities and banks have figured out how to eat up much of that value by saddling students with debt that can take decades to pay off.
If I’m going to spend $200k on college for my kids, it had better be for a professional degree. They can learn to be well rounded human beings from primary, secondary school and MOOCs.
That summarizes the issue. Why pay 200k or even 100k at the beginning of your adult life for something you can read and then talk to people?
If you think students or professors at these colleges will turn you away when you've studied the material, you're sadly mistaken. Why do you need to get stuck with the bill when you're not really getting anything out of it?
I am a big proponent of liberal education. I believe liberal education is the foundation of western democracy. However, I am also of the mind that one cannot pay $70,000 per year for a diploma in Ancient Greek (as much as I admire the pursuit). I think we are rapidly moving towards the past where liberal education will be reserved for the elite. The upper middle will go for more specialized Vocational education in CS, engineering, and the like. Given that I got my degree in physics as part of a college of arts and sciences I believe deeply that I received a better, more well rounded education than my peers in engineering and CS. This in turn has allowed me to make better decisions where I weigh the ethical nature of what I’m deciding.
One liberal arts college decided to admit more diverse, poor students and fewer white rich students. Then to make things worse, they decided to give the rich white students additional financial aid. Then, surprise! They ran out of money.
"The resulting Teachout Viability Metric (TVM), ... focuses on an NPIHE’s ability to meet its teaching obligations to currently enrolled undergraduate students through to their expected graduation dates."
An NPIHE is a college.
In other words, if a college doesn't have the money to guarantee it can stay open for four year, it has to start taking drastic steps which will probably scare away next fall's students.
Hampshire never had enough money to make a guaratee like that. Hampshire has always operated paycheck to paycheck, with almost no money in the bank. But it wasn't a life or death problem. They managed to slide by decade after decade. But now, with this new regulation, Hampshire is required to take drastic actions including admitting a tiny freshman class. Hampshire finances were on the shaky side and heading down. But this new regulation turned a manageable problem into an existential crisis.
64 comments
[ 6.3 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadThe study materials for those exams, worst case, bring the total to $750.
So $750 vs $50,000 for a modestly priced 4 year university.
Can anyone in intellectual good faith argue that the latter system is going to survive outside of the very short term?
Until the tech industry forms meaningful professional organizations with legal protections like law and medicine, these certs will be resume garnish compared to a degree.
Also going to university isn’t 50 000$ everywhere, this is mainly a weird US thing. I am a firm believer in the importance fundamental CS education, and picking up AWS from there shouldn’t be hard if that fundamental education was any good.
Yet when I went to University they were teaching Java/Pascal. What got me a job was learning more relevant subjects things on my own. Virtualization, Cloud, Containers, Python, Shell scripting.
Yeah I'll add my voice to the "University is overpriced and ancient" vote.
If absolutely nothing else, that $50,000 almost always includes room, utilities (electricity, water, high-speed internet, cable,) furniture, at least 3 meals a day, medical care, and a gym.
So you'd need to add the cost of those to the $750 for it to be a fair comparison.
Maybe they were created to fill demand that is now drying up. But if you search for any US state like: "Ohio colleges", google will show you "100+ more colleges" for majority of states.
It is obviously a really good thing for smart students in small towns and rural school districts and probably a big reason Ohio has a lot of small colleges, though in recent years Ohio has allocated a pool of money to pay for it all and when it runs out (it always runs out), then you have to pay for the classes yourself.
It's a good system, though few bothered to take advantage of it. I was one of 4 or 5 kids in my grade that took advantage of the system, even though there were dozens of better students than me who doubtlessly qualified.
However, the above assumes that the value proposition of college in society doesn't significantly change. There are pointers that it is. Although the problem is there isn't any alternative ready for it to switch to en mass. If people doubt the value proposition today, they're left with not going at all, which is a worse value proposition, or looking at something like a trade school-- that's a perfectly reasonable option, but issues of social perception/prestige make it less attractive, and many trades have low salary caps. A "medical assistant" tops out around $45k for example, though the more rigorous "physicians assistant" can pay up to double that. But overall, trades are fairly likely to have a firm ceiling on wages. Not that graduating college as an English major is always going to pay more, it's just that there's less of a ceiling baked in to it. (Though I'd argue the floor is much lower, like $10/hour barista low)
That's pretty darn low given that the cities hipster enough to have a barista career track tend to have the $15/hr minimum wage.
A lot of the “bond” jobs are overvalued. Being able to earn when everyone else can’t has its benefits.
I had great classes but I could have gotten the same education without the fluff. I bet without the fluff the cost would have been half or even cheaper.
I simply can’t feel sorry for an industry that yokes 18 year olds with $200k+ in loans for undergraduate degrees, especially in useless subjects. The faster there is consolidation the better.
> As of June 2018, Forbes reported that total US student debt was $1.52 trillion and that 44.2 million people owed debt.[3] The average student debt is $38,390. The median student debt is between $10,000 and $25,000, while 2% of borrowers owe $100,000 or more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_debt
$200k is closer to the kind of debt you'd expect from a medical school graduate.
That may be, but when the 6 year graduation rate is only 60% thats a lot of people paying "still pretty shit" in exchange for actually nothing.
All the expensive facilities added little.
This is how the article describes the focus of the article.
The buildings are severe 1970s concrete. The radio station is in a yurt. ... if you’re used to the grassy quads of state flagships or the rich Gothic and brick of the Ivy League, Hampshire’s austerity is striking. On my visit in the spring, tarps covered study carrels in the library to protect them from a leaky roof.
Friend: Well..long story short, they refused to continue to pay for her college, cutting her off at the end of her sophomore year. She couldn't afford to continue on her own, and she feels betrayed, and that it set her back decades.
Me: That really sucks..now I get it. They're bastards! So, where did she go?
Friend: Evergreen State.
Me: Oh.
But the article has problems.
First, it's not about colleges, it's about a case study on one specific cool hippy college that has no majors, no structure, a handful of semi-known graduates, and 13 students in the recent freshman class and (they think) probably 0 in the next.
Article has problems. Look at this:
> Depending on the state, needier students will usually pay less at a liberal arts college than they would at a state flagship. It sounds counterintuitive, but choosing a public school to save money is actually a privilege for the affluent.
It then clarifies:
> A survey of 405 private nonprofit four-year colleges by the National Association of College and University Business Officers found that though the average tuition rate was $38,301.
Average tuition at private colleges is $38,301, and it's more expensive at a state college?
I think not. What state colleges charge more than $38,301 tuition? Rhode Island has the highest at $39,029 for both tuition and fees. The $38,301 private average is tuition only. Or you can pay $12,363 on average for tuition in North Dakota. According to https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/state/.
But if you go to https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/state/north-dakota/ you find that in state tuition is $6,608 for North Dakota residents and $8,766 for out of state.
State colleges are dramatically less expensive in every single state than private colleges, especially for in-state students. The article's claim is so absurd that it demolishes the credibility of the entire piece.
You're poking at the lack of science knowledge and then immediately misuse "your". I'm not a grammar nazi but I think this underlines that we're all good and bad at various things.
College is in serious need of disruption. Most degrees add little value compared to their current cost. But the cost doesn't have to be so high.
What are your definitions for "most degrees", "value", and "cost"?
Is there a citation for that?
0. "Most degrees add little value compared to their current cost. We are talking about dollars here. Cost to get a degree vs. premium degree holders command for their labor." (initial text)
1. Most degrees add little [premium degree holders command for their labor] compared to their current cost. (textual substitution)
2. Most degrees add little premium degree holders command for their labor compared to [cost to get a degree]. (textual substitution)
3. Most degrees add little premium [that] degree holders command for their labor compared to [the] cost to get a degree. (add connecting words)
4. Most degrees add little premium that degree holders command for their labor compared to the cost to get [that] degree. (clarify "a degree")
5. [>50% of] degrees add little premium that degree holders command for their labor compared to the cost to get that degree. (definition)
Your words; not mine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/is-college-worth-i...
This is a reference for college being a net win to the tune of $500K. The interesting bit is that it's largely because the wages of high school graduates have greatly eroded.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/education...
My idea of how it will be replaced:
All learning will be done online and by independent organizations which could range from small time publishers to even people on youtube creating courses. Students will self-study or use other methods to learn.
Each discipline will have its own certification. If you want to display your knowledge of xyz subject then you get that certification and employers will hire people based on their collection of certifications. Employees could build up their certifications as they progress in their career, life-long learning.
The entire system will be more or less free-market based but overtime I could see dominant organizations taking most of the market. The strongest will rise to the top.
You can already see this happening in high-demand fields like tech where you have these "code camps" springing up and then all the little certifications being offered by google, amazon and so on. My vision is this type of system will become the dominant way to obtain specialized skills. Traditional education will have to compete within this system.
However, universities and banks have figured out how to eat up much of that value by saddling students with debt that can take decades to pay off.
How do other parts of the world handle education in the liberal arts?
That summarizes the issue. Why pay 200k or even 100k at the beginning of your adult life for something you can read and then talk to people?
If you think students or professors at these colleges will turn you away when you've studied the material, you're sadly mistaken. Why do you need to get stuck with the bill when you're not really getting anything out of it?
One liberal arts college decided to admit more diverse, poor students and fewer white rich students. Then to make things worse, they decided to give the rich white students additional financial aid. Then, surprise! They ran out of money.
This article does not touch on the real problem. A new Massachusetts regulation says that colleges must have enough money to guarantee that they can operate for four years. https://www.mass.edu/bhe/documents/THESIS%20Working%20Group%...
"The resulting Teachout Viability Metric (TVM), ... focuses on an NPIHE’s ability to meet its teaching obligations to currently enrolled undergraduate students through to their expected graduation dates."
An NPIHE is a college.
In other words, if a college doesn't have the money to guarantee it can stay open for four year, it has to start taking drastic steps which will probably scare away next fall's students.
Hampshire never had enough money to make a guaratee like that. Hampshire has always operated paycheck to paycheck, with almost no money in the bank. But it wasn't a life or death problem. They managed to slide by decade after decade. But now, with this new regulation, Hampshire is required to take drastic actions including admitting a tiny freshman class. Hampshire finances were on the shaky side and heading down. But this new regulation turned a manageable problem into an existential crisis.