Part of it is continuing education after high school. Time to learn more about the world, time to explore various topics like sociology (my major), psychology, literature, art, business, chemistry or whatever else turns you on!
Part of it is getting qualified for certain jobs.
And let's be honest, part of it is to join a fun atmosphere of dorm parties and football games!
However, there has been a crisis the last few decades.
1) College expenses have been rising at a faster rate than inflation. Meaning, yeah, most stuff has been getting more expensive, but college expenses have been getting more expensive AT A FASTER RATE!
2) And in this economy, recent graduates have been having a harder time finding jobs than previous generations.
3) Both 1 and 3 have caused massive difficulties to recent graduates who have to pay back all those student loans!
The older generation didn't have to pay such high tuition, nor did they have to face a junk economy right after they graduated from college! That makes it hard for the older generation to relate to the struggles of recent college graduates. The older generation were lucky in that they didn't have the pay the high amounts of student loans like today's generation.
-----------
Just like there was a tech-bust in the early 2000's and the even more devastating housing-bust of 2008, there has been a prediction that higher education is the next industry to face a sharp decline!
Greater expenses, a slow economy and more exposure to stories of recent grads struggling have been causing the next generation to be more reluctant to attend college!
Colleges can only raise tuition so much, otherwise less students will attend.
Loan agencies struggling to receive pay-backs from struggling graduates can easily lead them to bankruptcy! Once that happens, there will be less sources for college loans, less financial aid available!
And the next generation might think "college? too much humbug, why bother?"
All that will hit all the colleges hard!
----------
What to do if you're running those colleges?
There are no easy answers.
Facilities need to stay updated! That doesn't come cheap!
You need to hire professors and keep them around! That doesn't come cheap!
Students want activities on campus! That doesn't come cheap!
But you don't want tuition to be too expensive that you're accused of "denying opportunities to the less fortunate students!"
----
Some things will have to change! None of the changes will solve every problem, but still.........something can be done!
Some had mentioned the idea of having different tuition rates for different majors! Meaning, it is likely that engineering students will have to pay more than those majoring in literature!
When that idea has been mentioned, the reaction is "that will cause students to just take the cheaper majors" or "it's impeding access to the less fortunate if certain majors pay more tuition".
Everything has a pro and a con! Those concerns mentioned are legit!
However, let's look at 2 groups of students
Group 1) those who majored in the "humanities" or the "liberal arts".
Group 2) those who majored in medicine, engineering, business
Obviously, those in Group 2 will have more lucrative careers! They're more likely to be able to pay back expensive student loans!
Is it Fair that Group 1 (who end up in less lucrative careers) pay the same high loan amounts as those in Group 2?
Now you see why it might be a good idea to charge different tuition rates to different majors!
Let's also face another reality ----- it's harder to find professors to teach business, science, engineering, or medicine. It's easier to find professors to teach literature, history and other humanities/liberal-art majors.
After all, those who majored in business, science, engineering and medicine have PLENTY of profitable opportunities. Why take a pay-cut to teach at a university when you can make more outside of the university.
So that means universities have to pay professors of those majors MORE than professors of humanities/liberal-art majors.
Dont tell me that's unfair. Look, LeBron James get paid a lot more than some bench-warmer on his team. It's a lot harder to replace someone of LeBron's talents, therefore he gets paid more than an easily replaceable bench-warmers. That's basic everyday economics.
Whereas, those with PhDs in literature, history, and other humanities/liberal arts don't have as many profitable opportunities outside of academia. In fact, there is such a surplus of PhDs in those majors that there's not enough jobs for them in the universities.
Learn more at http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/02/21/academic_hypocrisy
Now, 50 years later, there is a long feature article in the February 17th issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education on the chronic over-supply of historians. Worse yet, leading university history departments are resisting demands that they keep track of what happens to their students after they get their Ph.D.s -- and inform prospective Ph.D.s of what the market is like.
If any business operated this way, selling customers something that was very costly in time and money, and which the sellers knew in advance was almost certain to disappoint their expectations, academics would be bursting with indignation -- and demanding full disclosure to the customers, if not criminal prosecutions.
But The Chronicle of Higher Education reports "faculty resistance" to collecting and publishing information on what happens to a university's history Ph.D.s after they leave the ivy-covered walls with high hopes and low prospects.
At a number of big-name universities -- Northwestern, Brown and the University of North Carolina's flagship campus at Chapel Hill -- at least one-fourth of their 2010 history Ph.D.s are either unemployed or their fate is unknown.
In other words, universities aren't always upfront about how much opportunities are really out there for someone with PhDs in history (or other topics).
Why would they, the universities just want the tuition money.
And this brings up another topic ---- CORE REQUIREMENTS
I remember when I was an undergrad at UH-Manoa, the university kept adding more and more core requirements. Even if the core requirements have NOTHING TO DO with our majors or future career plans.
I wouldn't be surprised if this goes on at other universities too.
They say that the additional core requirements are there to "make us a smarter person", "understand the world", "understand diversity", blah, blah, blah!
Anyone who believes such PR stuff is NAIVE!
The real purpose of adding more and more core requirement is MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!
After all, if you make the students take more core requirements, it becomes A LOT LESS REALISTIC for students to "graduate in 4 years". After all, you can't expect the students to be able to cram more classes per semester. The students also have to work to pay the bills, as well as get some time to rest and chill! So the core requirements make the students stay in the university longer. And the university gets more money!
And students who have to pay more student loans because of this have to suffer, while the profs and admin count their cash!
If the students have to take more core requirements, then we need to stop talking all this crap about "2 year colleges" and "4 year colleges". That's outdated stuff!
Why pressure students to "graduate in 2 (or 4) years, if they need more time to fulfill their core requirements as well as balance their school/non-school life!
And the NCAA rules on student-athletes have to have 80% of their degree done by senior year, has also caused problems when student-athletes have to switch out of their original preferred major just to stay eligible to play! The NCAA is still buying this OUTDATED FICTION of a "4-year degree" when some majors are now 5-7 year majors. If I was the NCAA president, I'll be like " just pass your classes, you can still finish your degree when you can"
----------
And this other controversy on colleges is now focused on "for-profit colleges" like University of Phoenix, DeVry, Remington College, Argosy, etc.
Some left-wing activists who hate corporations and hate the word "profits" are advocating placing restrictions on financial aid to for-profit colleges because some graduates are struggling to get/remain employed and pay off student-loans.
Those left-wing activists claim they're protecting those students.
But why are they railing against "for-profit colleges" WHEN THE SAME EXACT PROBLEM IS OCCURRING AT state universities and non-profit universities!
Those left-wing activists are more against capitalism,corporations and profits than protecting students. Plus, it's the left-wing professors at state universities who advocate adding more core requirements that adds to the student loan debt.
In other words those state university profs are just as guilty as "for-profit colleges" of adding debt burdens to their students.
Yeah, I did spend a few months at a for-profit college (University of Phoenix aka UPhx). I recently left that university and am planning to switch to a state university (UH-Manoa) for my master's.
(Learn more at http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/06/change-in-direction.html
Yeah, I prefer UH-Manoa over UPhx. That is my personal preference!
But you know what, let's not put out this BS about "UPhx leading all their students to doom & gloom while (gasp) profiting off them." I know a few UPhx alumni are doing just fine after getting their degree! And I think of most of my former UPhx classmates will do fine too when they get their teaching certificate and work in the school system! If UPhx works for them, then don't hate, congratulate!
