It Isn't Really An Argument

When talking about college loan and the much awaited handout, words really do matter. So does logic. The former are weak and the latter is on a multi-year spring break.  One dirty little secret is that, by actions in congress, where constitutional authority resides, a vast amount of current debt will never be repaid. First, payment is means adjusted with the first $20K of income exempt, more than the IRS standard deduction. Then, there is a 20 year limit. This doesn't trigger a balloon payment as it should but instead it is the end of payments. And remaining debt is forgiven making many US college graduates charity cases just as they enter their prime income generating years. The ill effects are far worse than undermining any character that might remain in the younger generation and are detailed by the American Institute for Economic Research. Maybe if more parents listened to economists (or knew how to drive a spreadsheet) we would not be in this pickle. 

The defense, if you can call it that, of the administration's unconstitutional efforts to exacerbate all these problems by wiping out even more what is due to be paid to the public coffers defies even a cursory review. Incredible numbers have applied for the handout (college was supposed to be the hand-up, right?) and are a round-up of the usual suspects. And the politicians offer no surprises, only nonsense. One of the finest examples is Georgia's very own Hank Johnson by parroting the left-wing "median household income in your ZIP code" blather. The average income of families around you has nothing to do the amount of your college loan debt no more than it sets your salary. Remember that whole "college degree means more money" chant you've heard all your life? Hank exposes the lie pointing out that half his constituents have a bachelors degree but "many others" have debt but no degree. Therein lies the problem. Some folks do not belong in college, based on these results. Colleges have no business promoting degrees carrying a loan burden that offers no chance of loan repayment. The loan, the commitment to repay and the acquisition of the ability to meet that commitment is a business contract. It is simple business logic. And that logic and that commitment is simply missing.

Autopsy Report For Higher Ed

A recent article in the Communications of the ACM regarding participation bias in CS education research boldly exposed why higher education is dead. It has to do with the grade distribution of a CS class at a major public university:

This Is The "Dumb Bell Curve"

This is not an atypical distribution for college classes in America and has been since the shift from the "attrition" model where poor performers go elsewhere to the "developmental" model where nearly every student accepted is ultimately awarded a degree. It should come as no surprise that almost no students are assessed as average with a cluster of non-performers at the bottom and everyone else pushed to the top. This situation is much worse than wholesale shifting upward of grades towards A's and B's (the average score shown above is a B- with a median of a B+) and away from C's - this is happening as non-academic factors are being heavily weighted in admissions. High grades are being awarded to students who not only could not have passed under the previous model but who would not have been assessed as college-ready in the first place. And this graph was presented with no apologies, with no shame. This is the way it is. 

Colleges and universities are no longer in the education business, they are just in business. They are increasingly open about NOT educating our children.  

All Or Nothing

We live in a world where stupid knows no bounds and suffers no consequences. The current administration attempted to throw a sizable bone to the yellow-dog faithful only to have it soundly rejected. Apparently a $10K student loan forgiveness was totally unacceptable: seems like it is all or nothing as far as the overly entitled are concerned. These arithmetically challenged, intentionally ignorant "scholars" seem trapped in a never-ending pity-party of their own making. 

Well, mostly of their own making.

Even taking the "all" option will not address the fundamental problem and we'll only see wave after wave of the over-leveraged entitled. Like immigration amnesty without immigration reform this is kicking the can a very small ways down the road. Even public schools are over-commercialized expanding not the actual education services, hence the worthless degrees, but administrative overhead. This happened when the industry embraced the Oprah philosophy, everybody gets a degree, and to accomplish this a transition was made from an attrition model to a developmental model. This requires enormous expansion of wrap-around services, remediation (explicit or embedded), extended stays (outside of service academies graduating in six years is considered success) and exponential expansion of non-educational staff and administrators. Oh, yeah, and budget. 

Because when clear the mental fog you'll see that this is all about the money, not learning, not even credentials...just money. And until we, as a society, address these fundamental failures we will have nothing but a pipeline of the indebted ignorant.

Don't Work So Hard...

...they will just take it away. That seems to be the message from the woke-ity woke cancellibs and one guy seems willing to call out the woke folk on their intentional systemic racism: 

He even seems to think it is about time for people of color to stand up for themselves.

Maybe this is the start of a new movement in our society-MAMA: Make America a Meritocracy Again.

Weapons Of Math Destruction

Among all disciplines mathematics has some unique qualities: logic; completeness; and correctness. You either proved Fermat's or you didn't. You can prove things do add up or that they never will. Of course by math, this means real math, not the pseudo- or fake-maths like statistics and certainly not the vulgar concept that any endeavor involving numbers is "math." So back in the day when you found yourself in the company of real mathematicians you were amongst some of the most rational, logical human beings alive.

Those days appear to be gone, at least in academia. We've known for decades that colleges and universities have abandoned the classroom mission of teaching and learning so it should be no surprise that such activities hardly find their way to the average prof's to-do list. But maths is cumulative and plays an important support role. You are definitely going to need those calculus skills when you take on PDE's and you're going to be a mental cripple in Heat Transport without some reasonable math chops. You would think it would be hard, nearly impossible, to expunge teaching/learning from maths. But academicians can do hard things. And so they have.

Unshackled from classroom responsibilities Math professors have joined their colleagues in an obsession over social justice especially as it is manifested as "diversity" in their mind's eye if not in reality. A recent tempest in their teapot was brewed up when Abigail Thompson published an op-ed piece in "Notices," an American Mathematical Society publication where she raised concerns about the use of Diversity Statements as a gating factor in hiring faculty. Doing this by delegation to pre-screeners in HR by providing a rubric makes this a litmus test from which no Teaching Statement or Research Statement can salvage the application. If you cannot satisfy the Thought Police your application will never even be read by anyone on the hiring committee.

Where Thompson lit up the SJWs was in comparing this pre-requisite, overarching testimony to diversity to loyalty oaths of the McCarthy era. Backlash was as immediate as it was off target as there seem to be fetid bags of bile wrapped in human flesh, and ordained with PhDs, awaiting the slightest pin prick to unleashed their screed, even if that screed is otherwise irrelevant. They called for the AMS to retract her op-ed piece. They called for her dismissal. They called for boycotts of her University by job applicants and grad students until they removed her.

What they did not do is address the logical errors in her analogy. These pre-screening practices intended to guarantee that only those aligned with the political leanings of academia are allowed even a chance at entry are not McCarthyism. McCarthy sought to remove folks from positions they already held. He sought to de-platform, to "cancel" before there was even an internet. These diversity litmus tests are much more like Trump's immigration policies than McCarthyism. That is what Abigail Thompson's detractors should have, but did not point out. Instead, what they actually did by trying to cancel Abigail Thompson was demonstrate that academia is saturated with actual McCarthyism. Because she did not pledge her loyalty to their satisfaction, she did not join their jihad, they insisted she be black-balled. And like Joe McCarthy they believe they wield that power.

And the most outspoken Joey in this inter-web Kangaroo Kourt goes by the name of Chad Topaz with a day job at Williams College and he was swift in leveraging his twitter feed for a call to arms--a petition in protest of Abigail Thompson. He wasn't alone and upwards of 600 loyal SJWs chimed in with attribution (naming their employer). But wait! There's more!

Having not learned a damn thing from the Oberlin Over-reaction the jihadists had gone a bridge too far and there was backlash to the backlash which seems to include at least one individual from Williams. Apparently there are still some reasonable minds remaining in academia, even at Williams, and the original petitioners presenting themselves as speaking on behalf of their institution ended up with "some 'splainin' to do." Herr Doktor's twits were abruptly deleted from his twit-feed but have been preserved and analyzed by a group championing, and critiquing, all things Williams. And then there is the money. One commentator observed that Herr Doktor runs a "non-profit" where he solicits donations for which he provides "free and anonymous" consultation on preparing an effective diversity statement. He has set up a business monetizing the expansion of litmus-test diversity statements using a quid pro quo that would make Donald Trump blush.

Herr Doktor also provides mere taxpayers with an opportunity. From his web page (you'll have to go directly to chadtopaz.com as he redirects links) you'll notice he has been sucking off the taxpayer via the NSF and expects to continue through 2021. He includes a disclaimer that opinions on that site are his and not a representation of the NSF and yet he was among those who refused to accept Abigail Thompson's similar statement that her op-ed piece was her personal opinion only. Maybe we can learn from Herr Doktor--perhaps he can be cancelled. From the NSF. Perhaps if we all write to the NSF and our US Representatives and Senators demanding de-funding this foolishness we can effect a meaningful change. 

THWG!

To Hell With Georgia! The rally cry of the Good, Clean Haters as the last act of defiance before their gridiron heroes charge into the slaughter. But it gets worse. How? Glad you asked.

You've probably heard of U.S. News and World Report because colleges and universities are adept at scamming their rating system using the deceptive outcomes to their own advantage. But there is another organization, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) whose job it is to keep track of how well their colleges and universities are performing as educational institutions. You, know, What WILL They Learn? Unlike that other rating system this one, from folks in the know, emphasizes Composition, Literature, Foreign Language, U.S. History, Economics, Mathematics and Science. Given these criteria and those judges how does Georgia's flagship party school stack up against a world renowned trade school?

The ACTA website offers a nice little comparison tool and you can easily compare the Fuzzy Bees to the Hairy Dawgs. Turns out UGA makes the A-Team while, educationally speaking, Tech is Junior Varsity. While neither makes the grade on economics (a quite serious failing) Tech doesn't even seem to bother with either Literature or Foreign Language. Sorry to disappoint all the Wrecks out there but neither Python nor R qualify as a Foreign Language though there may be some validity to the argument that Lisp should be accepted. Tech does address its shortcomings by charging more, addressing the needs of the thrifty by offering only a 40% graduation rate. Given the Party School's 65% graduation rate Dawgs are ultimately going to spend more, on average. Or so it would seem.

You'll also find that UGA, along with other Georgia A-listers KSU and Morehouse, made ACTA's list of Hidden Gems which is missing not just the Bees but each and every Ivy League school. And if you want to feel better (and end on a good note) notice that Georgia faired better than almost every other state in the union including those pretentious folk looking down their collective nose at dumb southerners.  

Ask Not For Whom The School Bell Tolls

It tolls for the death of learning. This is no surprise to anyone paying attention but the eradication of learning, and teaching, from the education industry is all but complete. Systems like DeKalb have long focused on "wrap around services" emphasizing what goes on outside the classroom using this as a cover for ignoring what goes on inside the classroom. At the college level the transformation to a customer-focused service industry has been deliberate and tragic. Turning the keys to the asylum over to the inmates began with end-of-course teacher evaluations--that these often ask students who may have barely scraped thru the material "does the professor know the material?" and that these evals are a significant portion of tenure criteria pretty much tells you that academia have decided that happy students are more important than knowledgeable ones. Even knowing the depth of ignorance of these transient, self-entitled students, academia has placed their fate at the mercy of whatever incites their whiny indignation. One need look no further than Oberlin College to appreciate the existential threat academia has created for itself.

More pervasive is the societal tragedy know as the 504 Plan as this sits at the confluence of over-labeling ("diagnosing" as a disease or disorder that which cannot be shown to have a physiological basis), celebration of those so labelled and accommodations for those with "psychological impairments." The 504 scheme affords special concessions to those "students" who stress over tests and since qualifying for this program is based on wholly subjective evaluations parents are doc-shopping to get their kids in. And the "subjectivity only" evaluation model mimics what goes on in our public schools. Simpatico. At least one knowledgeable observer contends that by 2020 almost every child will have a diagnosis at which point there will really be no point. At least not where schooling is concerned.

Where will we be when our entire workforce requires time-and-a-half because they are just so stressed out? How will we compete in a global market of products, services and ideas? Maybe it just doesn't matter. That seems the message coming from the education industry. 

Time And A Half

This is not about overtime pay. It is about a method used by students and their parents to improve the chances their little snowflakes can improve their GPA. In colleges and universities across the United States there is a branch of administrative bloat known as "Learning Resource Center" or "Disability Resource Center." Sounds benign, almost warm and fuzzy. But let's look at how this operates.

What you do, as a parent, is trot your little darlin' to a pliable, buyable shrink. She will generate some official looking paperwork claiming your child needs special consideration. You take this and the "special" one to the aforementioned Resource Center and now, magically, they are accorded special treatment most commonly extra time-time and a half-for all quizzes and exams and these will be administered and proctored by the Resource Center workers (administrative bloat, remember) and NOT anyone associated with other classroom activities. Once your unique snowflake is branded special it is as if they are enrolled in a separate school within a school. That is because they are and it is a school with lesser academic rigor. Why? Because that's what your snowflake needs. Because this is an open secret it is no longer about a few snowflakes. It has become a blizzard. No one has a snowblower and no one is interested in getting one.

It is a money-making sham and every knows it. Try as you might you'll not find peer-reviewed research in any top journals suggesting that time-and-a-half is THE amount of time leveling the intellectual playing field for any and all of the various disabilities students suffer. Why? Because it just isn't so. And it really, really isn't the point. The education industry is now focused on graduation rates and growth, particularly in the administrative, non-educational functions that are not now and never will be subject to objective measures. This is merely an extension of education's war on testing. There are no scientific studies that would undermine this effort because the basic premise is silly and metastatic administrative growth will not subject itself to scrutiny. 

The Real Admissions Scandal

The real scandal was not that the rich can buy their children's way into an elite university. It is that once in that university everyone, the parents, the kids, and everyone at the university know that kid is going to get a degree from that "elite" university. Short of open displays of conservatism anyone who gets in is all but guaranteed a diploma.

Why?

Because U.S. News and World Report rankings factor in both acceptance rate (lower is better) alongside graduation rate (higher is better). And what makes an elite, elite is a) size of the endowment; and b) their ranking with U.S. News. You may be wondering how U.S. News became so important, so powerful. Join the crowd. No one knows and if anyone does, they're not talking.

But the real scandal, if there is one, isn't gaming an acceptance system but it is the diploma mill these gamers get their children into. 

Guest Post: Can Honor Be Learned?

From the Honor Code Exit Exam:

Professor Z has a unit on Mark Twain in his sophomore english class. For pedagogically sound reasons two papers, due on the same date, are required for this unit. The first is to discuss the life and times of Twain up to his writing of "Huckleberry Finn" and discuss how his life experiences affected the work. The second is to examine his life and times up to his writing of "Letters From the Earth" and again examine how his work was affected.

At the due date Student C, among a few others, turns in only the first of the papers. Upon notification by Prof Z that TWO papers are expected, Student C provides the second work in a manila envelope, properly labeled and slipped under the prof's locked door. The next day Prof Z finds Student C's envelope, and opens it to find the second paper with a Post-It note attached. The note clearly states "here is my second paper" and thanks the professor for the chance to submit the work past the deadline.

Upon examining Student C's paper, Prof Z finds it is actually SIGNED by Student A, contradicting the Post-It note. Further examination indicates it is line-for-line, word-for-word, character-for-character the same as Student A's paper which Student A turned in on time.

Professor Z concludes that Student C obtained Student A's paper, Xerox-ed it without even bothering to change the name and submitted it for evaluation as if it were indeed Student C's work. When confronted, Student C does not contest these facts.

The Honor Council weighs the facts of the matter arriving at one of the following outcomes. You pick which is most likely:

1. The act was determined to be willful and done in full knowledge of the honor code thereby justifying stern action to maintain the University's integrity.  Student C was awarded an 'FV' (failure due to honor code violation) carrying -4 quality points and not allowed to register for any courses until this course was re-taken and successfully completed.
2. The act was egregious and the unavoidable conclusion was that Student C felt entitled to an A and therefore considered cheating justified. This called into question all other work Student C had allegedly performed in this and other classes. In addition to an 'FV' in this course, Student C earned a 'WF' in all other courses, was suspended for a year to be re-admitted under a one-year probation only after the course was re-taken successfully.
3. Student C suffers from learning disabilities and a certain mental condition requiring medication. These medications have side effects that impair reasoning, memory and judgment. Taking this into consideration, Student C gets an Incomplete for the course and is assigned to a counselor who coordinates activities with professors to prevent future occurrences and ensure that Student C stays on task.
4. Student A's actions were also reviewed but before it was determined there was no transgression on that student's part, Student A speaks in anger to Professor Z.  Student C on the other hand, makes the case that the assignment was confusing, that much of the second paper was actually in the first, that submitting Student A's paper was a simple mistake, poor judgment, or an understandable accident, and if Professor Z hadn't actually asked for the second paper none of this would have happened. The Honor Council agrees and Student C gets an 'A' while Student A is chastised for his moments of anger and enrolled in anger management classes.
5. The situation proves that Twain was more accurate in his assessment of humankind in "Letters From the Earth" than in "Huckleberry Finn." To honor Student C for this ground-breaking analysis a PhD is awarded, O-D-K membership is bestowed and a statue carved from an ancient tusk, then gilded in gold is erected in the quad. Twain is removed from all courses. Student C lands a job as an apprentice barista but is later found spiking watered-down espresso with No-Doze and is now a campaign manager for a senatorial candidate.

Remember, only one answer is correct!

A Problem With Higher Ed

Actually it is a problem with how folks, who pose as reasonably intelligent, view higher ed. Christopher Quinn of the AJC hits the nail on head with this pearl of wisdom:

There are many reasons people quit [college]. Personal and family problems interfere, an immediate need for money pushed back long-term goals, the fear of debt and lack of hope that the degree will pay off in more income discourages others. 

Notice anything missing? That's right. There is no mention whatsoever that some folk may not be capable of college-level work. But how could that happen? Why would any college or university offer entry to anyone who could not be reasonably expected to perform to a level required to complete the program?

Money. And if that is not enough, then there is political correctness around race and diversity. At then end of the day that really just boils down to money.

Academia has inflated quite the bubble. There are too many colleges and universities with far too many subscribing to a "grow or die" business model, driving towards tuition-driven models with little or no concern for anything resembling academic integrity. Or any other form of integrity for that matter. And as much as some like to make political hay from the HOPE program, injecting more government money is like putting out a tire fire with kerosene.

As long as colleges and universities have no skin in the game, and currently they are paid just as much to create academic failure as success, this problem will continue to grow. We could require that all public college and universities drop all remediation programs, forcing them to use tools, readily available, to ensure that those admitted earn a mortar board without the institution becoming a tax fueled diploma mill. While this will have immediate impact on their revenue, even that is not enough. The next step is ensure that academic institutions carry some financial risk associated with the "it's an investment" myth of higher ed. Such a restorative revolution could happen, just not in today's political climate and entitlement society.

Silly Season Upon Us

Tuesday marks the voter's chance to pick from a bouquet of single-issue pure-bred candidates. But. There is one issue that everyone lines up behind: government education. Politically it is like oxygen, without it a candidate quickly gasps their last breath. Non-negotiable. Non-partisan. Red and blue, both end up purple.

There is one problem and it is a big one. Education isn't what these folks and their constituents say that it is and most folks, especially those who actually have one of these educations know the truth. Most folks figure this out pretty early. You learn for the test, whether from the College Board or the teacher between you and the Smart Board. With few exceptions, most notably math, you can purge all such knowledge without consequence. THAT is what makes math hard--you actually need it for more than the quiz.

Got a college diploma? Been working for a while? And... Do you use much if any of what you studied in college in your average work day? Didn't think so. But don't feel bad, only the very few actually use what they learned in college and they have a special name: college professor. After all, what do you really expect to do with a degree in Medieval European History? That's right, teach Medieval European History--to a bunch of bored students who need this course to get a diploma to get a job. There are a lot of folks out there with history [and english and psychology and ...] degrees that are, based on content studied, worthless.

Or are they?

In "The Case Against Education: Why the Education System is a Waste of Time and Money" economics professor Bryan Caplan makes a compelling case citing a wealth of research--you can fact-check and second guess to your heart's content. You'll have a VERY difficult time countering his argument, partly because it is a conclusion based largely on the research of others, including those who'd not likely agree with his conclusion, and presented in the context of common sense. How can you nod knowing at "All I Ever Needed to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten" and then tout the inestimable value of the college education offering no learnings that you now use?

More unsettling is Caplan's explanation, not necessarily original to him, that the value of education, particularly to the labor market is, in a word, signaling. You get a better job with a diploma not because you'll use anything you've learned, beyond basic literacy and numeracy, but because acquiring that diploma tells hiring companies something they can use to quickly, effectively and easily improve their hiring decision. The diploma signals some measure of intelligence, of conscientiousness and most importantly that you are compliant. You sat thru innumerable mind-numbing courses with arbitrary content and requirements and yet you did what the voice of authority at the head of the class told you to do. Because they were at the head of the class. Because they were in charge and you were not. What pointy-haired boss doesn't want that?

To be clear, Caplan is adamant, constantly repeating that education is not only signaling, but that it is mostly signaling with the rest being what politicians and others wax poetic about: human capital--ephemeral, unmeasurable, unquantifiable and yes, inestimable. Except when it isn't. Like in economics. Caplan reaches and supports all the logical conclusions. Signaling is important because it is effective. Credential inflation, well under way and proudly promoted by politicians, undercuts that effectiveness and therefore the signaling value of education. We don't need more worthless diplomas, we need vo-tech. We need separation of school and state, just like church and state.

We need to quash credential inflation. Soon janitors will need a college diploma. Politicians will see to it they get them. Once everyone has a diploma, at any level, the diploma signals nothing. So you move to the next one and the next until you run out. Yet politicians seem hellbent on fueling credential inflation given the slightest opportunity to do so. If they said they were going to invest your tax dollars in Venezuelan bolívars voters would run them out on a rail but when they say they're going to print diplomas at the Caracas Mint voters drool.

We don't need politicians bragging of bravery as a Ranger or a SEAL, or their gender, or poverty, or bad haircut. We need statesmen whose real courage lies in making difficult, necessary and unpopular decisions. We need leadership.

Exceptional Students

Students must believe they are exceptional because they are always asking for exceptions. It has been going on for decades but has become all but universal recently. They've gone from the first day of class notification that they "are an 'A' student" to threatening to gang up for career-killing course reviews. It is not an idle threat.  Before launching the nuclear option they will demand "extra credit" oblivious to the fact they've not bothered to do the work required of "usual" credit. Once their god-given right to an 'A' seems threatened they run to the department head on their way to the dean. If the institution has integrity the entitled darlings will then provoke their parents to intervene usually leading to a discussion of FERPA.

But if a Prof really wants to screw with their little self-esteems it is easier than one might imagine. All you have to do is tell them they can have whatever grade they want. Don't want to do the work? Don't do it. Take an 'A'. Don't like the project team you're in? Get out. Take an 'A'. Upset because your loopy candidate lost an election? No problem. Take some down time. Oh, and take an 'A'. Turns out the entitled little snots find this 'Take an A' policy insulting. Almost as if the professor is telling them their work ethic sucks, they haven't learned and aren't likely to start any time soon and yet still expect an 'A'. It only hurts because it is true. But they want the transactional appearance of "earning a grade" when in fact they have no intention of doing half the work needed to earn a 'C' a mere thirty years ago.

And the University is in on it. Like any other business it is grow or die. Expand at all costs even if it means lower standards for entry as well as retention. A society that believes a college degree is a pre-req for success is not going to resist the decline past mediocrity into absolute educational fraud. Yet the school doth protest:

"The syllabus did not conform with the university's rigorous expectations and policy regarding academic standards for grading. Rest assured, this ill-advised proposal will not be implemented in any Terry classroom."

As an academic endeavour Business must be laser focused because this statement clearly ignores the history of the University. Turns out the University has a documented history of passing out grades without necessarily handing out tests. Passing grades for ball passers. And this University is not alone. The practice is nationwide. And now it is being expanded from money-making athletics to money-taking academics. All this professor did is what was done before: expose today's 'education'  for the sham it has become.

Just Say No

Colleges and Universities across the United States are dropping entrance exams like a hippity-hopper droppin' da mike. And this isn't just your local community college trying to grow enrollment at any costs, there are some big names including Harvard Law. It don't get no better than that.

Some believe this allows them flexibility in favouring diversity over competence without discoverable evidence that could put them on the losing side of a civil lawsuit. Maybe, maybe not. But there is some merit to the argument that lowering application requirements encourages a greater number of applicants without increasing the number of asses-in-classes thereby decreasing their acceptance rate. Acceptance rate is one of US News & World Reports key performance indicators, the lower the better and better numbers mean greater prestige. This is close but no WEO. They do want significant increases in the application numbers but not just to appease a questionable rag. Applications are not free and no one gives a refund to any applicant accepted or not. So these Colleges and Universities are tapping their brand for new and growing revenues.

And this isn't chump change:

1. University of California-Los Angeles:$5,369,840
2. University of California-Berkeley:$4,681,320
3. Stanford University:$3,632,130
4. University of California-San Diego:$3,608,290
5. University of Southern California:$3,419,440
6. Harvard:~$3,000,000

Millions of dollars taken from dumb chumps many of whom don't belong in any college let alone a big name school. This is taking candy from babies. 

HOPE Not

North Fulton is looking pretty chill on the Milestone end of grade assessment:

Hell, it is over twice as good as South Fulton! And yet, in no category does North Fulton score better than fifty-fifty. Then it gets interesting. In the same AJC article we find that neither SAT nor ACT scores are blowing anyone away and yet sixty percent qualify for the HOPE scholarship.

Your education dollars at work.

You MUST Send Your Kids To College

Increasingly folks, even those with kids, are asking "Why?" By the time many mortar-boreders walk under the arches they're pushing tens of thousands of dollars in debt out ahead of them. The college degree that had been touted as the gift that keeps on giving turns out to be one that keeps on taking.

But it does give, right? Right. Well that is the widely held belief but the understanding you have to ignore is that correlation is not causality. This particular universal truth is one that is quickly glossed over by academia, particularly the for-profit universities named after a far away city or state. Not only is a degree with their name on it not entering into a causal relationship with your future income, it probably will not correlate very well either. This is mostly because as schools (using the term very loosely) they are masters of convenience and do not produce graduates with much mastery of much of anything else.

So the real problem is just these new-age diploma millIs, right? Right.

Turns out so-called legitimate higher education has something of a bubble going on. They are producing, at almost every level, a number of graduates exceeding what industry can absorb. It isn't just those folks whose passion led them to an advanced degree in "Post-Coital Haiku Studies" this is true with the much Ballyhooed "STEM." TOD has already recounted the GT-EE-PhD who could not find a job until he dropped the PhD from his resume (and quit calling it a "C" "V") but this happens in the STEMiest of STEM: Mathematics. A PhD in Math should be a ticket to anywhere you wanna go, right? So long as you don't actually want to go into academia. For the past several years US universities have awarded between 1800 and 2000 Math PhDs yet a search on EIMS for tenure track Math positions a total of 32. Hardly one tenth the number of new PhDs given you discount the thousands more waiting in the wings with "Visiting Professor' (IE: post-doc) on their C.V. You think you don't even use your high school algebra? How much work you think is out there for Algebraic Number Theorists? Don't save all your pity for the poor English major.

And when it comes to education (rather than training) other STEM areas fair no better. The answer lies in the hyperbole of the high tech execs wringing their hands over the lack of skilled tech workers. They dare not say so but they are really looking for programmers not computer scientists or engineers of any stripe. That's one reason, indentured servitude being the other, they love H1B. They want training, not education. They want certificates not diplomas. Their jobs need skills, not credentials.

So is that university credential really a sound investment? Like any other investment it's relative--you have to compare to an alternative. Any public school sophomore who has endured "STEM" classes ("Here's a spreadsheet, it can add numbers. Numbers? Oh, they're a concept. We'll do that when we get the toothpicks.") should be able to drive a spreadsheet well enough to calculate the net present value of two options: "investing" in college, deferring income, or entering a trade, or the military taking an earlier salary (and making ROTH IRA contributions). Of course these models must be parameterized to adjust for starting salaries, annual raises, periodic promotions, taxes with tax increases, and the time value of debt and investments (like those ROTH IRAs). Extra credit for a pretty graph on the summary sheet showing how long the model has to run before Net Present Values cross--assuming they ever do. 

It's No Wonder

From the AJC

"Here's the hardest-to-hire list, with comments from the experts:

Data scientist
This job analyzes big data, a field that's difficult to define. The job varies by company and industry. CareerCast thinks 4.4 million such information technology jobs will be open next year.

Software engineer
The Conference Board estimates there will be three jobs available for every 2016 college graduate with a computer science degree."

Let's ponder this a bit.


First there's the data science/scientist thing. Not really that hard to grok. As one might expect, the Wikipedia entry on Data Science offers as good a definition as any out there. To put it in an internet of thingy context tis the data scientist who figures out that knowing when you open the fridge is not nearly as useful as when you use the toaster oven. Some say it is art others say it is just statistics. Either way big business thinks it is a real good reason to up the H1B visas.

Software engineering on the other hand is a worm-feast. Where to start?

Engineering is a licensed profession like being a doctor or lawyer except in most jurisdictions the legal beagles turn a blind eye showing more concern that your nail salon has licensed practitioners than just what yahoos are developing dosage control software for an X-Ray machine. Radiation burns not keeping you up  at night? Then consider this: image how many Licensed, Professional Software Engineers are working on those self-driving cars. You really want to bet it cannot be hacked?

Turns out there is one state licensing Software Engineers and it is no surprise it is the same state that went after Novell for their "Novell Software Engineer" credential--don't mess with Texas. They seem to take a similarly dim view of folks claiming to be a pediatrician simply because they can print it on a business card. Texas licensed the first Software Engineer in the US in 1998 and racked up a whopping 44 in the following 4 years. Doesn't speak to strong market pull-thru from the unlicensed and incapable. The likelihood that any of the software that touches your daily life has even been looked at by a real Software Engineer is as close to zero as can be imagined. Hell, the likelihood it was even written by someone with a first world education is pretty damn small. After all, if you're going to use third world practices to build software you might as well get third world labor to do it.

You can be pretty sure if someone has "Software Engineer" on a business card that is exactly what they are not. Becoming an actual Engineer requires more math, physics and chemistry as well as supervised experience than the average hacker would tolerate. And make no mistake, they're not Computer Scientists either. See, a Computer Scientist is going to prove an algorithm works (or doesn't) using that math stuff. You know, the crap that was so hard you became a programmer instead of a Scientist or an Engineer. And that is what "Software Engineers" really are: programmers. And that is on a good day. The rest of the time they're just coders.

Deep down the folks running big business know all this and when honesty bursts thru as it did with NCR's president they will fess up to needing programmers. But they do this state and our R1 institutions a disservice when they pull our best and brightest out of PhD programs because they need someone to drive Hadoop or hack some java code in a Point of Sale system. They need ITT Tech, not GaTech.

When All Else Fails...

...lower your standards.

The good folks running education in neighboring South Carolina have made enormous strides in upping graduation rates, often approaching 90%. How did they do this? Did they steal a page from the APS playbook and encourage failing students to withdraw into a private school? Not at all. They just started handing out credits and diplomas.

When it comes to educators it is just as easy as turning a knob.

How were these fine educators exposed? Well, even in South Carolina you need to perform on the SAT or ACT to actually use that high school credential to get into college. On those tests these pitiable children, lied to by their teachers, by and large did not pass both the verbal and math sections of the ACT. In one school, touting an 85% graduation rate, not a single graduate passed either section.

And don't kid yourself that this is just South Carolina. The Feds are all in with Every Child Succeeds. Georgia has taken it to a new level mandating that the University System up their graduation rates. Given that in public schools, K-12 and college, there is no accountability-not in the classroom, not in the administration, not in the Boards of Education and not in the Board of Regents-Georgia is willfully creating a system of diploma mills. One feeding the other.

You probably are wondering why the government, our elected officials, would undermine our public education system. Pretty simple really-corporate relocations. Georgia is getting corporate relo-s but we're also losing some to Alabama and South Carolina. Part of the table stakes is "an educated and trained workforce." Fortunately for the state government and all our educators it doesn't have to be real--sort of like downtown crime, "we want people to FEEL safe when they come downtown." And corporate America is jiggy with it too. They started the ball rolling with "Master's in Computer Science, or FOREIGN EQUIVALENT" opening the door for less that scrupulous foreign education systems/governments to pump out credentialed, but often unqualified, holders of "Foreign Equivalents." Companies knew there was no equivalence but it WAS cheaper. The CEO of NCR had a brief encounter with reality commenting about their next relo to Tech Square when he said he really wanted access to the Tech's programming talent. NCR needs programmers from ITT, not Masters in Computer Science from Tech.

Is there anything anyone can do to prevent government and business interests from pushing a pliable education system into diploma mill status?

There is only one organization in America that can put an end to this - US News and World Report. Recently they adjusted their metrics to account for situations where grad students are filling the teaching roles of PhD wielding professors. At least one major R1 in Georgia has responded by hiring a significant number of non-tenured, PhD instructors. They are readily available because academia turns out several hundred more PhDs per year than they can otherwise absorb--they practically litter the job market. The non-tenure status (probably a good idea in general) means easy-hire-easy-fire in the event USN&WR pivots to some other criteria, say research metrics. They will, they always have.

What we need USN&WR to pivot to is remediation. Sufficient demerits for remediation will eliminate it from our R1 universities in order for them to maintain their ratings. This will  apply back pressure to the K-12 system which is, as in South Carolina, pumping out well credential, unqualified graduates incapable of embarking on an R1 calibre education. Lots of good could come from this but don't expect dramatic or even measurable improvements in Georgia's K-12 public schools. These will hew true to the internal mission of "Everything They Learned, They Learned In Kindergarten."  It is more likely that the State will establish "Acceleration Academies" for remediation and finally offer adequate support for Technical Programs throughout the state. At the end of the day that is what businesses really need and is achievable, though aspirational for the State of Georgia.

College Is Over

If you do not believe that College has served its purpose in American Society and needs to be pushed aside then read this:

The Coddling of the American Mind

Political Correctness so out of control that even Left Wingnut Profs can no longer abide it. Does anyone believe this will deliver graduates capable of entering the workforce let alone competing globally? How many generations have we lost? How many more will we lose?

Professor Heal Thyself

Hardly a week goes by without us hearing about the downtrodden professor at some college or university. The story starts with "we haven't had a cost of living raise in XX years" and degenerates into "look at the pay (increase) disparity between class-teaching professors and college administrators." For those outside the ivory towers of academia a "cost of living raise" is an automatic pay rise totally detached from an employee's increased (or decreased) responsibility or productivity. These are raises "just for hanging around" and are always a positive bump in pay even in times of deflation. In the real world it is just another entitlement that most do not receive.

As for the pay disparity we are being told that there just are not enough qualified or top-tier administrators being produced to meet the demand which drives up the price. No reliable data on the trends in that demand are available but many, mostly outside the administration, clearly feel it is growing at too fast a pace for the inherent need. That's one side of the equation.

The other side of the equation is more on point. Academia is producing an enormous excess of qualified candidates for the limited positions available in academia. In some cases the excess is between one and two orders of magnitude. We hear of one veteran professor who whines "they are treating us like interchangeable parts." Well, that's because you are. And every year you push out new, improved versions of equally interchangeable parts that can be had for year-over-year decreasing prices. Many of those complaining luxuriate in the guild socialism of "tenure" something else unheard of in the real world and increasingly rare in academia. The gradual elimination of tenure should surprise no one since tenure reduces Administration's flexibility in replacing old, worn out parts with newer and better ones.

It comes down to Econ 101: supply and demand. Colleges and Universities generate revenue enrolling and graduating students. Creating more graduates than academia's employment market demands naturally drives down compensation and other benefits. No surprise there. But when you are creating an enormous surplus of candidates for your own job you should not be too surprised when these same economic pressures directly impact your personal circumstances. Apparently this leaves no sympathy from tenured professors for their PhD students who face a certain barrage of rejection letters that start with "Unfortunately you were not selected for position XYZ but you were amongst our twenty finalists from a candidate pool of over six hundred..." and this was reported by a Math major who recently earned a PhD from an R1.

The solution is obvious. Stop enrolling and graduating students who upon graduation will find themselves,  along with hundreds of others, vying for a limited pool of jobs that may very well include your own. Obvious, but it will never happen. Decreasing the student population in a given field will incur a loss of revenue demanding a reduction in force which immediately converts the I-Me-Mine "I'm paid too little" whiners into "I've been fired" whiners. For tenured faculty it appears far better to complain about salary compression while pumping out graduates well suited for jobs that do not exist than to right-size their own operation because of the chance they might lose their own job in the process. They should not act so indignant when Administrators treat them as disposable as they do the very same with their students.