Talk:Higher education in the United States/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Higher education in the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Admissions

I think that the importance of getting accepted to a college as "general studies" but not into your requested major is understated in the article. I don't know where to look for a resource to cite but it's far more common than the article would lead someone to believe, especially in some majors. Chuy1530 (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links

The Squicks insists on including this as an external link. I object as it's an eight year old article that should - at best - be used as a reference if the information is important enough to include in this article. Even if it should be used as a reference I am sure that there are more current and more well-vetted (i.e. peer-reviewed) articles that can be referenced instead. --ElKevbo (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing if not a reliable source. Regardless, I agree that using it as a ref in the article is a fine use of the source. The Squicks (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

General comment

This article, like so many we work on, "just grew." Right now there is hardly anything that related to actual education per se, but mostly environment - tuition, school selection, etc.

I just added a blurb on where students study - some abroad. This is still a bit off the topic, but closer than a lot of what we have so far.

The article is getting large enough to need some organization. Right now, the lead is longer than some subsections. It too, "just grew" I suppose. I think it should be broken off someplace and the whole article reorganized. If i knew exactly what, I would do it now myself! :) Student7 (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Another external link

Why is a link to an external list of all currently listed colleges and universities considered link spam? I am referring to this edit: "04:05, 9 December 2009 ElKevbo (talk | contribs) (35,788 bytes) (rv link spam) (undo)" 70.20.139.72 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)User:70.20.139.72

Shouldn't the 8 year old article from findarticles follow the same logic as the Rueters article and be reduced to a footnote? I moved the link to referencs.70.20.139.72 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)70.20.139.72

First, we only put things in the References section if they're actually used as a reference (the current section is a mess that needs to be deleted or at least made clear and explicit; right now it looks like just a list of random books and articles without any indication of how they were used as references for this article). Second, I object to the link you added as it's simply unnecessary. This is not a directory of links but an encyclopedia article. If we should include a link to a listing of institutions, I recommend an impartial one operated by an authoritative non-profit such as the Department of Education or the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. --ElKevbo (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The link I included was to Dept of Education data. While the original source is the Dept of Education, the website is arranged to allow quick access to detailed data through a variety of list types including size of schools, public vs private status, list of schools in each state, degree granting vs non-degree granting, etc.; the department of education doesn't offer such lists but only the raw data. I think the link is relevant and useful and contains no biased information at all. 70.20.138.90 (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)70.20.139.72 now 70.20.138.90

I think that the College Navigator tool does exactly that. It's a Department of Education tool that hooks directly into IPEDS data. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree the college navigator site is good and useful and should be linked. However the 'navigator' site is lacking in that it does not include a quick list of schools the way the link I sent does. It has other shortcomings as much of the data is not publicly available or verifiable. As an example look at the student to faculty ratio. The navigator site relies on non publicly available and un-verifiable data to determine those ratios. The site I provided a link for uses only publicly available and verifiable information and calculates a much different, and some would suggest 'more realistic' view of data including student to faculty ratios. 70.110.251.101 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 70.20.139.72

The College Navigator tool relies on data that is as publicly-available and verifiable as it gets. In fact, it appears that the site to which you linked is just using the exact same data and presentation as the College Navigator tool! Further, the Ed tool does provide student-faculty ratios and it also allows you to view entire lists of institutions using many different criteria, including just viewing long lists of institutions in each state. In fact, I'm not at all sure what utility it has to list every single institution in one giant, unsortable list which seems to be the only advantage your link has over the College Navigator tool.

I'm not particularly married to the College Navigator itself but it seems to be a very good tool that has really good data collected and published by one of the most reliable sources in the field. It's not perfect but it's a good tool and I don't know why you would insist on using a different tool published by a much less reliable source, particularly when that source is just reusing some (but not all) of the same data. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong about the College Navigator data. It uses data that is not publicly available. Contact the Dept of Education and ask them they calculate the student to faculty ratios, for example. They will tell you that the data they use for that field is not publicly available, nor verifiable. Whereas the data in the link I provided is all publicly available and verifiable and includes more information than can be gained from the college navigator site. There are a variety of sites which present the core Dept of Education data in differing ways. Personally I think the fact that the ipeds navigator uses non-verifiable data makes it a poor choice. Let me see if I can't find another site out there presenting the same data in a more useful way. 70.20.161.28 (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)70.20.139.72

I'm very sorry but unless I'm misunderstanding you I'm afraid that I'm going to have question your competence on this topic. The data used in the College Navigator tool are derived from the information Title IV-participating institutions report to IPEDS. If they falsify or screw up that information then they could be fined or have their eligibility to participate in federal financial aid removed, a virtual death penalty for any institution.

You can access the data on the website to which I linked above using one of several available data tools. There are definitely some issues with IPEDS data but to make an unsupported blanket claim that it's "[not] publicly available and verifiable" is ridiculous. For heaven's sake, they even provide a concrete definition of the term you proclaim is mysteriously undefined and tools to download the data and perform the calculation yourself! --ElKevbo (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the data used by the college navigator tool is not publicly available including the student to faculty ratio. The data used for that item, specifically, is not publicly available but *may* become available at some time in 2010. If you perform the calculation on that item per the instructions you will conclude, because you cannot conclude anything else, that the publicly available data does not equal what is presented in the college navigator tool. Unless and until it becomes available it is not verifiable. However the publicly available data is verifiable and in most cases accurate according to the institution who filled in the questionnaire when the questionnaire was completed. Please verify your "facts" before you accuse others of ineptitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.198.238 (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

re: NPR link. If we follow your logic, why are we linking to an article from NPR? They have no qualifications to help people decide what college to attend. That link should be removed as being from a biased source and irrelevant. 70.20.138.90 (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)70.20.139.72 now 70.20.138.90

It seems useful and impartial to me. If you really think that it's a bad link then feel free to remove it. But please don't remove it out of spite. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just questioning your application of logic, I think it should be removed as it's out of date and not from am unbiased source. If it is to be included other sites should be linked that offer competing perspectives. ie:

http://www.petersons.com/common/article.asp?id=2442

http://www.sparknotes.com/college/admissions/page1.html

(wow, I can't link an article from the examiner...)

70.110.251.101 (talk) 70.20.139.72

I disagree that it's from a biased source but if it's out-of-date and no longer useful, please remove it! --ElKevbo (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Total cost

A expository site claims that there is over $800 billion in total student debt. This probably ought to be researched and inserted someplace. Student7 (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Info doesn't agree with source

Approx. 90%-100% of students accepted into U.S. Universities achieve their degree.[32] This is abnormally high compared to other countries, and cannot be explained by students' ability, since SAT is uncorrelated to IQ.

The source only gives a list of the best graduation rates from 75 to 90+ percent. The following sentence is also unsupported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.164.120 (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've corrected it. Apparently changed to be bogus from original and we didn't catch it. Student7 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dubious statement on autonomy

There is a statement:

"The American university system, like the primary and secondary education system, is largely decentralized, in large part[citation needed] because the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves all powers not granted to the federal government or explicitly denied to the U.S. states "for the States respectively, or to the people." Such a degree of autonomy in higher education is rare."

This has been correctly tagged with a number of "citation needed" requests. I think it is more in the "dubious" category. Primary and secondary schools started under the administration of localities in colonial times when the colony had no money to give to localities but were sometimes happy to furnish them "direction!" :) This seems to have "carried over" into an equally unprosperous federal stage who had even less money and no inclination to give direction. Institutions of higher learning were mostly private until the mid-19th century. Again, the federal government wasn't about to tell a state how to run it's local colleges.

So the "Tenth Amendment" seems a bit out of place unless someone can point to where the Supreme Court used that in the 18th or early 19th century in some case brought before them on education, which is unlikely. Probably the whole paragraph should go except to note that it is local, and it is unusual. But mostly to do with bottom up government, which is how British colonialism worked. And we are talking strictly higher education here which seems (to me) to have a different history than primary and secondary schools. Student7 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed 10th amendment sentences and other material that seemed irrelevant. Student7 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

College rape/date rape

A respected editor removed this section:

"The National Institute of Justice and the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 35 of every 1,000 female college students are the victims of rape or attempted rape annually. Very few of these are actually reported to authorities.(ref) first=Denise-Marie | last=Balona | title=Many don't press charges in sex cases | url=http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-05-21/features/os-florida-college-rape-20110521_1_college-rapes-ucf-police-victim-advocates%7C work= | newspaper=Florida Today | location=Melbourne, Florida | pages= 5B | date=May 22, 2011 (ref)"

This has received quite a bit of publicity, not just in this article which I think was Associated Press, but in many other articles, as well. There is and can be no actual count of rape on campus. There are only samples gathered in a scientific manner. There has been specific cases reported, where authorities ignored reports of rape because the accused was an important sports figure, for example. There is "date rape" where the girls, immature, can't figure out if they had some responsibility for it or not and are afraid to report it for that reason. Or had sex with that person and didn't want it at another time.

The sad part is their calling campus security, built to resist such accusations, instead of reporting it to their local police, who would handle it seriously. It is very much a part of the "higher education" experience for women in the US.

Can it be "better" documented? Sure, like most sections of the encyclopedia. But it has to start somewhere. I am not dedicated to this sort of thing. I just saw this reliable material reported in an npov manner in a reliable source and therefore included it. Student7 (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

yes many women get raped and yes many women are college students and yes there is an overlap. So where do these rapes occur--on campus makes it a possibility for inclusion in a section on campus security; off campus makes it ineligible for this article, in my opinion. The National Institute of Justice report mentioned by the very poor quality newspaper article was based on a 1997 survey--since then campus security has become much more competent. The survey p 10 said 1.1% of the women had been raped (it counted 74 victims; but half these women said they had NOT been raped p 15). The standard nation survey showed rates 90% lower (p 14). Of the 86 rapes the survey counted, two thirds happened off-campus. (p 20). So what we have is an old alarmist survey that greatly exaggerated the incidence and kept quiet that the rapes that did happen were mostly off campus. Not very encyclopedic. Rjensen (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong citation

paragraph 2 cites the UNESCO, but the reference leads to some obscure private website (aneki) that doesn't give any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.30.148 (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the invalid UNESCO reference and updated another to a considerably more reliable source. I also can't find another source for the number of institutions of higher education in the U.S. Just going with the number from the previous unsourced reference until something better can be found. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

cleaned up political views

The section contained a huge amount of incidental trivia amounting to a large block of he/said she/said. I've removed most of the esoteric details not substantially relevant to the political views. The AEI book "The Politically Correct University" has a reasonable survey chapter ("By the Numbers") which does a good job of giving broad demographic numbers in context. A lot of the other content appears to be based directly or closely on primary sources which are controversial, hypothetical, preliminary, or have not reached a wide penetration in academic or other broad circles. For example, there is no reason to have a 6 sentence summary of "The Left-Leaning Tower" NYT article, which only serves to corroborate the demographic information in the lead paragraph. aprock (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The other sources include for example major newspapers and describe important aspects of the debate. Miradre (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the rationale for including a 6 sentence summary of "The Left-Leaning Tower"? aprock (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

it's a hot topic and the reason some users come to the article. Rjensen (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It might help if could point me to the "hot topic" guideline or essay. aprock (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

sure--try "leftist faculty" in google. you will get over a million web sites. Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that google searches represent wikipedia guidelines or essays, or how that google relates to the summary of the NYT source in this article. aprock (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Major newspapers are reliable sources. The later paragraphs add additional information not present in the first. Miradre (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is disputing either of those facts. aprock (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This section needs to be rewritten by an experienced editor. Political sections are always difficult to write, and the section as it currently stands is mostly good, but there are far too many unsourced claims, statements with questionable sources, etc. Many of the sentences seem as though they were written by an amateur. Anyone up for pruning this section to Wikipedia standards? 66.59.249.107 (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried looking at it and removing obvious sources of contention such as gratuitous adjectives. Didn't seem that bad, though I'm sure it can be improved. Seems to be worded more or less objectively. Student7 (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Finances

I added some information about "list-price" tuition vs. real expense of a college education, including unregulated school fees, living expenses, and lost income. Jiaho93 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the Finances section, adding some details, sources, and criticism. I also removed the following lines, which didn't seem to fit:

"The Bachelor of Science and the Bachelor of Arts, both requiring around four years of study, are the two most common undergraduate degrees awarded by universities in the United States.

Intercollegiate athletics, organized by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, are very popular and very competitive in the United States, especially college football."

RS102704 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

berea college and college of the ozarks is tuition-free too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.242.57 (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a wikilink to "Adjunct Professor" should be included where it is mentioned under the category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_professor#Adjunct_professor

24.96.200.176 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about governmental funding for college during the Clinton era, specifically in terms of socioeconomic need and tax breaks. I feel this section adds an important historical context to how the approach to governmental funding of college. Avanherik (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Access to higher education -- Funding

At the end of the third paragraph, I added a brief discussion addressing the recent phenomenon of need-based aid increasingly becoming "merit sensitive." I cite a reference to a study to that effect. I also hyperlinked the words "need-based aid" and "merit-based aid" to another Wikipedia article "Student Financial Aid in the United States" where I elaborate further on this trend in a discussion of need-based aid. Kmcurran2012 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

During the 1990s college entrance exams were weighted more heavily in financial aid decisions than previous decades. Additionally, during this time, how colleges defined merit and need based aid blurred and a consistent convention across colleges did not exist. We edited the article to include this information, citing McPherson and Shapiro (2006). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuarttjenkins (talk • contribs) 01:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Funding

The following is an explanation for edits resulting from a collaboration between Mattdimos, Ktekverk, Cnwatkins, and tuanniz (these are our wikipedia user names). These edits were made to fulfill an assignment for a Teaching with Technology course taken at Northwestern University during the Spring 2012 Quarter. They were made on May 8, 2012.

The funding section of this article was edited to include more information about specific funding sources for higher education. Information about these sources was purposely brief because it was possible to link to other wikipedia articles focusing specifically on these funding sources. Links were included to new references where appropriate.

We felt the current funding section did not adequately address the various types of financial aid available and did not present this information in an easily accessible way. The funding and accessibility sections seemed to overlap, and we have attempted to clarify this distinction. We adjusted the order of subsections within the funding section was also adjusted to allow for basic information about funding for higher education to proceed information about issues related to the ways in which higher education is funded in the United States. In order to do this, we created the following headers for subsections we identified within this section or added to this section: Grant, Scholarship, and Work Study Programs; Student Loans; Federal Student Loans; Private Student Loans; Education Tax Credits; and Issues Related to Financial Aid. --Cnwatkins (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Class project?

Is there a class project going on with this article? Three editors, all of whom had their first edit on April 24, have edited this article within a few minutes of each other. If so, you may want to read Wikipedia:School and university projects. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this was a class project. Thanks for the suggestion on reading the university project page. Visionovervisibility (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Major changes coming in higher education

People I've talked with (including college administrators and admissions consultants), as well as numerous newspaper and online sources, suggest that major changes may be coming to higher education, and that possibly the higher education landscape will be substantially different in ten to twenty years time. Several factors may include (1) Technology (Internet, computers, online courses, etc) are making the cost of educational content drop to practically nothing -- for example, courseware from The Teaching Company on practically most college courses are available from public libraries free of charge; online learning; distance education; webinars -- these technologies continue to evolve. (2) Prices of college educations continue to rise (sticker as well as real costs) (3) The perceived value of a college degree doesn't always translate into a well-paying job sometimes causing (4) huge debtloads for college graduates. I've heard talk of a coming shake-out, perhaps not affecting elite institutions (although they'll probably be adapting to these changes in their own ways), but the small Tier II and Tier III liberal arts schools may be hard pressed in the next few decades to survive. State schools may be affected as well. The whole issue of accreditation may change, in the sense that the current system for accreditation may be replaced or supplemented by rather thorough tests of knowledge such as College Board and ACT tests. My sense is this article should address some of these things in the lede paragraph as well as elsewhere.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of this is covered (and cited) in the "Finances" subsection and may (therefore) be legitimately summarized in the lead. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And most of it should remain out of this article unless supported by multiple reliable sources lest this article become a place for people to push their pet theories and ideas about how higher education in the U.S. should change. ElKevbo (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Check out this report in The Economist. The subhead reads "American universities represent declining value for money to their students". It is not a mere problem of finance or a "pet theory" but may bring profound changes in the coming decades.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Still think this article needs something about new developments such as Massive open online courses or MOOCs. Much activity; many new courses; they're free; exponential growth; many sources talking about it. The wikipage on MOOCs has over 3000 pageviews per day.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

the crystal ball tells us that MOOCs will revolutionize higher education – much the way correspondence courses by mail did in the 1920s, radio did in the 1930s, television in the 1950s, videotapes in the 1960s, Britain's Open University in the 1970s, computers in the 1980s and so on. The Revolutions are very well predicted ahead of time, but so far none of them have ever panned out. I think Wikipedia has the right policy: avoid crystal balls. Rjensen (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree about crystal balls but that is not what I'm talking about; rather, it is that this article should address the issue of how technology is impacting higher education in America. And numerous reliable sources suggest that major change is underway -- not just idle speculation. The article does not even mention MOOCs; this is a real shortcoming. Readers who follow higher education may see this article as out of date. Check out these sources about MOOCs; there are many more.Mike Boxall (8 August 2012). "MOOCs: a massive opportunity for higher education, or digital hype? As top-ranked universities join the MOOC revolution, backed by big-name investors, Mike Boxall asks what we can learn from dot.com history and who the eventual winners will be". The Guardian. Retrieved 2013-01-18.Mary Beth Marklein (September 12, 2012). "College may never be the same". USA Today. Retrieved 2013-01-18. ...Massive Open Online Courses --MOOCs...Nick Anderson (January 9, 2013). "MOOCS — Here come the credentials". Washington Post. Retrieved 2013-01-18.JOHN MARKOFF (January 17, 2013). "Measuring the Success of Online Education". The New York Times. Retrieved 2013-01-18.Douglas Rushkoff (January 15, 2013). "Online courses need human element to educate". CNN. Retrieved 2013-01-18.

Photo removal

This photo was removed with the summary description that colleges have had gyms for the past hundred years and it was a "POV" addition. But when is a climbing wall a gym? And what evidence is there that climbing walls have been around for 100+ years? What Selingo (editor of Chronicle of Higher Education) and numerous others are saying (many references here) is that college costs have gotten out of control -- with students going into serious debt -- partially because of colleges indulging in expensive amenities such as these. Please provide reasons why the photo should be removed or else I will reinstate it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The original 1891 "Basket Ball" court in Springfield College. It used a peach basket attached to the wall.

there is a lot of POV going around that attacks colleges for frills like "climbing walls". That flags the idea as heavily freighted with anti-academic POV--Tomsulcver admits that is indeed his own POV when he says (above): "indulging in expensive amenities." As for "out of control costs" -- he had not provided a cite like "climbing walls contributed XX% of the overall collegiate budget in 2012." What did the Gettysburg wall cost?? Anyway the logic is poor-- colleges have always built athletic facilities like playing fields, outdoor tracks, indoor gyms, dance floors, and swimming pools --and spent $$$ on them. Climbing walls indeed are recent but they represent one of a class of hundreds of types of gym equipment that has been around since the late 19th century. Basketball courts, for example, were invented by James Naismith at a college in 1891 and quickly became very popular for winter indoor activity on thousands of campuses. Doubtless that is another one of these "expensive amenities." The main point is we don't want polemics in the media salting this encyclopedia. Rjensen (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Since when am I anti-academic? How did you come to this conclusion, hmmmmm? Is this your POV? Seems kind of like a personal attack by a professor making a rather hasty judgment about a handyman. Since we're on this subject, since when do climbing walls have anything to do with academics? If there is any POV here, it is the idea that climbing walls are a form of gymnasium – seems like a touch of original research. Is there a possible conflict of interest when deletions are made by a professor who depends on revenues from parents forking out $$$ for “academic” amenities such as climbing walls (which DO cost money – paid staffers beneath the climbers making sure there are no injuries, equipment, insurance, etc etc. -- more expensive than basketball courts) But I am not making this up. Consider a reliable and established source – Jeffrey Selingo, editor-at-large of the Chronicle of Higher Education who has seriously studied higher education, written a book about it, and concluded that college costs have gotten “out of control”. Selingo is not some quack minority fringe view, but part of a large and growing chorus that college costs have gotten out of control. He mentions climbing walls specifically (I bolded the term):--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(subtitle) On why colleges are building fancy, resortlike dorms (Selingo:) College now, today, has many jobs, right, and one of the jobs is maturing students and giving them kind of a comfortable place to live while they're going to school for four years. And so now we see, you know, these palatial dorms that have been built on many campuses — they have their own private bedroom and they share a kitchen and, you know, you go into a dining hall now and you have sushi in the dining hall. You have climbing walls, which I think everybody has, but now you even have these lazy rivers where you can get in an inner tube and go down. ...
— Jeffrey Selingo 2013 (ref)NPR Staff, interview with Jeffrey J. Selingo, with David Greene, May 8, 2013, With Gorgeous Dorms But Little Cash, Colleges Must Adapt, Accessed May 9, 2013(endref)

people who repeat anti-academic slogans as "facts" are anti-academic. There's a lot of that going around in 2013 and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. My point is that climbing walls are about as academic as swimming pools or basketball courts, which are normal parts of American colleges for 100+ years (by the way I retired from my professorship 15 years ago, after directing PhD dissertations on the history of college life) As for fancy dorms and meals, kids pay full price for them (& most students are commuters who live off campus) Rjensen (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, professor, seems to me like you are substituting your viewpoint (eg "academic" climbing walls, identifying views inconsistent with your own as "slogans") for that of Jeffrey Selingo's and numerous other reliable sources who complain about high college costs, students graduating with substantial debt, etc etc. I will leave this for others to decide here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not been inserting my POV here. And yes a phrase like indulging in expensive amenities demonstrates unencyclopedic POV. I honestly think that Tomwsulcer believes that is true and that's why he selected that picture of a climbing wall. Should state governments cut back on college budgets? Is college too expensive? That's not for Wikipedia to say. (As for my own POV: If anyone is interested they can look at a powerpoint presentation I gave two weeks ago to a college audience entitled "Why Pay For College If Wikipedia is Free" Rjensen (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently "POV" for Rjensen means when his viewpoint disagrees with a source such as Jeffrey Selingo, editor of Chronicle of Higher Education. So let's agree to disagree here, huh professor? I took the photo of Gettysburg College's climbing wall a few years ago. It surprised me. At first I thought: wow -- I would really love to go here if I was a student; but then, thinking again as a parent, I wondered about costs. I was there with my son on a college tour, led by a student tour guide plus prospective students and their parents. Somebody asked if this student had ever climbed that wall. No, he said. I suppose Gettysburg is a good college but it is expensive. $50K/yr. That's $200K over four years. That's a fifth of a million dollars. That's in an economy with fewer and fewer high-paying jobs. Discussion emerged among the parents. How will parents pay for this? Or how will a student pay this back later on, if debt is used? Climbing walls seemed exorbitant. This is what us parents agreed, almost unanimously. Someone compared colleges from thirty years ago to colleges today – that they've morphed into four-star hotels, resorts almost, four-year extended vacations, spa-like. Selingo described dorms as “palatial”. Dining halls serve sushi. Lazy rivers (I hope you won't insist lazy rivers are “academic”). If you had a son or daughter, touring colleges, looking at prices and costs, with limited resources, wondering how you or they would pay for all of this, perhaps you might agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be covered in a general, higher level, way under Higher_education_in_the_United_States#Finances at the bottom. Most colleges are subsidizing intercollegiate athletics. There is a cost associated with this. It is relatively high. If a college can be persuaded to give up its football program in favor of a climbing wall, most would be much better off, alas. Student7 (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Selingo seems to be a serious commentator and his general point about colleges becoming more luxurious could be relevant for the article. However, I am surprised that climbing walls have been singled out. Many British universities have a climbing wall. It hasn't been regarded as a big deal. http://www.brookes.ac.uk/sport/headington/climb http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/sport-exercise/sports-centre/sports-activities/climbing/climbing-facilities http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/sportscentre/boxrox/ http://www.surreysportspark.co.uk/facilities/climbing/. Some of these are open to the general public. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked into it. U Georgia built a big climbing wall at a one-time cost of $8 per student. Colleges have a student activity fee that pays for such things and the students vote on it. (as for sushi, all colleges charge the kids for lunch--it's part of a meal plan.) Rjensen (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The $8/student was the building cost; what about insurance if students get hurt? What about the hourly cost of guides, below, to hold the rope? What about equipment? Or people to monitor equipment? Seems exorbitant, but not as bad as lazy rivers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'm less worried about falling off a climbing wall than I am about slipping on the ice in front of the library and breaking an ankle--but not to worry: all universities have liability insurance for accidents that happen on campus. Staffing costs in student affairs are paid by the student activity fee. "Seems exorbitant" is the sort of POV we avoid at Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Slipping on ice could lead to a broken ankle, yes; falling off a rock wall and landing on one's head could lead to severe spinal injuries or death; consequently, the liability insurance must be greater. All it takes is one parapalegic, caused by a climbing wall accident, even at a different college, and all insurance companies will raise their premiums as they must. Liability insurance costs money; premium rates vary by risk. And I do not see why it is important whether costs are born through a student activity fee or to directly to the college. Does a student have a choice to opt out of a student activity fee? Generally there is no choice involved -- fees must be paid along with tuition, so I do not see why the detail about some things being paid out of a student activity fee is relevant. Step back a second, and think about it this way: suppose you're a college administrator. College costs around $50K per year per student. That's $200K over four years. This is serious money. Parents complain about the high cost; students complain about possible future debt; a tight job market means it will be difficult to pay down that debt while supporting oneself afterwards. Given these dynamics, as a college administrator, what are you going to do? Build a climbing wall? Lazy river? Sushi bar? These things have nothing to do with academics, basically, but are frills designed to attract students by making college more like a four-year vacation, a spa, a resort, and this is the point that Selingo and many others are making, namely, that college costs have gotten way out of control.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I live in Montana & I'll be careful on the ice and i PROMISE not to climb that wall. Student fees are actually set by the students themselves via the elected student government or referendum. College in Montana cost around $7,000 tuition, $1000 books, $8000 room and board, for a full year at our very good 4-year universities here in Montana) [and its even cheaper at community colleges]. At ***** state University Michigan total cost is $26,000 a year (including room and board). In Florida it's even cheaper, but I think the schools are not nearly as good. At U Georgia it's $21,000 a year for everything and you get the climbing wall thrown in--and the sushi. Likewise U Florida is $21,000 (? on sushi). All states have even cheaper community colleges, usually close enough to live at home -- no need to pay more. (At the top: Tuition at Yale & the 100 high end private colleges is $30,000 to $40,000 a year, room & board is $12,000. People who are smart enough to get in seem to realize it's a good deal. I think they are right) Saving students $500 a year by cutting off their innocent recreation opportunities is a very bad solution in a high anxiety situation. Rjensen (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

How convenient for your analysis that you focus on the most cost-effective schools (community colleges, state universities), mostly ignoring private liberal arts colleges. What does Allegheny College cost for 4 years? $164K, estimates CNN Money for parents earning $75K-$100K/yr. Many elite schools have large endowments, meaning they can offer attractive discounts to students or subsidize expenses in other ways; so a Princeton University student pays only a fraction of the overall cost. So, where are the good deals? Elite schools (mostly), state universities (better) and community colleges (possibly best deal overall); it is most other schools, particularly Tier II and Tier III private liberal arts colleges, of which there are many, where there is this budget crunch factor, with administrators thinking (or not thinking) that the way to attract students is to build good old climbing walls, and lazy rivers, so students can get their academic training while floating around in inner tubes, hopefully studying, trying not to get their books wet or to dip their iPads in the circling waters. Good idea for professors to avoid climbing walls, although in some instances, a good fall on their head might improve their thinking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The current "discount" or scholarship rate for private colleges is 45%. That means if the list tuition is $25,000, the student actually pays about $14,000 in tuition at a private school. (The sushi is full price and I can testify that more kids eat pizza & burgers.) Over half the nation's freshmen attend the cheap community 2-year colleges. Of those at 4-year schools, about 3/4 are at the cheap state schools. As for the tier II and III private schools, I know them pretty well. Yes indeed presidents spend much of their time recruiting students. They emphasize the value of small classes and personalized attention--that's what is expensive. (you can take a MOOC class for free--but 95% drop out before finishing.) At U Michigan/Iowa/Calif/Florida/etc your freshman classes will have 200-1000 students, with one high paid prof $120,000) on stage and 5 - 20 grad students (paid $15,000 a year) as teaching assistants who you actually will meet and deal with. In science & engineering your TA's will not be very good at English, and they don't know much about teaching. At the liberal arts college your class size is 20, there is no TA, and the professor will actually know your name and be ready to help you rework that paper. That is critical for most kids to graduate. You also will have an excellent chance to be on the football/softball/etc team (if you have basic talent), and be in a play, a glee club, etc etc. You have a 20x better chance of becoming a class officer or club officer compared to the big schools. The liberal arts colleges facilitate the social skills that most people need to advance beyond night manager at Arby's. At those small private schools the alumni pay for the climbing walls, as they are very pleased to give $$ to schools that so decisively shaped them. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally I agree with most of your numbers and thinking, above, that is, the most recent paragraph, except what I am saying is that the value of a liberal arts education is not what it used to be, since there will be fewer jobs for those graduates. I agree about the general value of a liberal arts education -- it teaches people how to think, how to write, how to learn; problem is, is this worth $150K to $200K, with four years of foregone income, with the average after-college job paying around $40K/yr? This is perhaps the point that William Bennett was making, and Selingo too. I think increasingly MOOCs will be incorporated into conventional university-level teaching, and will gain increasing acceptance when problems with accreditation work out; you are right that most persons beginning a MOOC will never finish (but, they still probably learned something -- and overall numbers are growing). I am less sure about whether liberal arts college teach social skills necessary for career advancement, or whether those could not be learned elsewhere. It is a different world. I am curious to see whether in 20 years time, whether many of these Tier II and III liberal arts colleges continue to exist as autonomous entities.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well it's all very interesting reading everyone's views on higher education policy, but perhaps it's time to focus on the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, just as soon as I finish on my climbing wall, floating down the lazy river with my sushi.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes you can refer to Selingo's statements, no you can't put the photo in because it would tend to endorse that particular point of view. Yes, the (UK) university I work in has a climbing wall. It can't have cost much in relation to the other gym equipment and it doesn't need more health and safety attention that the kick-boxing classes do. No the university doesn't serve sushi: the food is much better than that. It doesn't have a "lazy river" but there is one in a public swimming pool a few miles away. Are there serious debates to be had about student finance and equity? Certainly, and an international audience is counting on you to explain carefully the US perspectives on those debates. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll accept your viewpoint to keep the photo out, even though I still believe I am right. In the US, lawsuits, and the threat of them, drive up costs considerably; in the UK, this is much less of a problem since the political system is much healthier than the US. Can we end this thread and begin a new one?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Higher education means high costs

The general problems with finance and cost in US higher education remain, regardless about climbing walls, and I do not think are adequately addressed by this article. My overall sense is that colleges and universities are out of touch with meeting the needs of most Americans as well as foreign students studying in the US. Costs are too high. Rjensen talks about professors salaries, but there are two big issues here which (in my view) do not get sufficient attention. First, most professors are paid based on how well they advance their discipline, not on how well they teach; I have found numerous instances in which teaching assistants and graduate students have done a much better job of teaching while the professor was clueless; services such as Ratemyprofessor.com give numerous reviews of many professors being substandard in the teaching department; so the relative fame or prestige of a professor is not always related to their ability to really help students, in my view. Second, a professor teaching a class is like watching a live acting performance, each time; but much of this material is repeated if the course is taught in the next semester, and thereafter; it is like reinventing the wheel, starting from scratch. Why not record the lecture, get feedback, and tweak it successively in the future, constantly improving it? Having a professor teach the same material, over and over again, directly, seems to be a waste of money and time. Compare it to a Broadway show (one time performance, high cost) versus a movie (recorded, less cost) or a DVD (even cheaper). This is somewhat the idea behind MOOCs. I have listened to many lectures from the Teaching Company on diverse subjects; overall, the quality of the professors is much higher than ones I remember from college where it was much more hit-and-miss. What I am saying is that the lecture delivery of almost all professors could be replaced with better quality recorded performances so that the professors could focus on answering questions, helping individual students, and so forth; right now, professors time is being used poorly, in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

tape the lecture and replay it -- that's what MOOC does (free) and 95% drop out. it's the interaction that is critical and gets lost. That's the same story over and over again: classes by radio/ film/ TV never worked. Rjensen (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree student-teacher interaction can be important, but I am not talking about average everyday humdrum professors taping their lectures, professors who are divided between research and teaching, for whom research is what pays the bills, and for whom teaching is a nuisance chore, and then having these "teachers" replay their lectures. Rather, I'm talking about something much better. Consider that firms such as the Teaching Company as well as online universities such as the University of Phoenix are identifying the best professors -- excellent teachers, knowledgeable, who can present material clearly, make it interesting, who are skillful at capturing and maintaining interest, and presenting their lectures with excellent sound quality, great visuals and diagrams for their DVDs. For me, the Teaching Company wins hands down; and it is not even considered as a university by any stretch. Pretty much every Teaching Company professor I've heard was better than every college teacher I had to sit through. What can make it even better is when there is a feedback loop, with lectures undergoing constant improvement, with criticism, weeding out weak points, checking to see how well a given lecture informs, and then constantly improving them. This feedback cycle -- it is how business works. This is how academia should work. The computer revolution which empowered corporations, has sea-changed publishing, which has been reworking scientific discovery, will have its way with higher education too. I agree with Jeffrey Selingo that colleges may not be disappearing, but to a greater extent, the smarter more with it colleges will build MOOCs and related technology into their offerings, perhaps keeping control of accreditation and credentials. Hopefully they will accept MOOCs to a greater extent, and bring this into their curricula intelligently. Flexibility should be the key: let the researcher-academics do what they're best at: research. Let teacher-academics do what they're best at: teach (question and answer sessions, individual attention when needed, etc).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

One other thing: previous "classes" by radio, TV etc lacked a key ingredient which MOOCs promises, namely, interactivity. The student can be quizzed during the program. There is feedback. And a computer can provide a full video environment, with moving images, sound, graphics, drawing software, and is much better than merely watching a TV program or listening to a radio broadcast. A computer MOOC can grade student answers, assess progress.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

yes but it doesn't work -- the U of Phoenix is a notorious example, as their graduates have a very hard time getting good jobs. The computer-as-solution ??? I started teaching computers to historians in 1968 -- so we have 40+ years of experience and in that 40+ years students have not been learning any more than they did in 1967. Rjensen (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What specific changes to this encyclopedia article are you proposing? ElKevbo (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I just made some. William Bennett, the conservative pundit, can't seem to read his own table, which shows the great majority of schools have positive rates of return to the BA. (and he uses no baselines, like comparing students with BA to a) those without BA or b) those with BA and MA degrees. So we drop his rather incoherent shat with an interviewer. As for MOOC -- what is the average salary for their graduates? Nobody knows so projecting them as a salvation is crystal ball gazing, which Wiki discourages. Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen removed referenced information from the former US Secretary of Education. Apparently Rjensen knows better than William Bennetts AND Jeffrey Selingo. Come on. Rjensen 1 Selingo 0. Rjensen 1 Bennett 0. To me, this is one more sign of severe bias in this article, real POV out of control.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

no a casual interview is not an RS. I read the Bennett interview and the source listed and find Bennett simply misread the data. He said only 150 (4%) out of 3500 schools repaid their cost. there are 1248 schools in the study (not 3500) and and 1048 (84%) of them (instead of his 150) met his criteria. The job of an editor is to spot junk even if the author 25 years ago had a cabinet job. Rjensen (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Baloney. Look at the article's headline: Only 150 of 3500 U.S. Colleges Are Worth the Investment: Former Secretary of Education.^[1] To have a Wikipedian go over the numbers and come to an entirely different conclusion, contradicting the former US Secretary of Education William Bennett, is plain and simple original research, just like removing conclusions from Jeffrey Selingo, the editor of Chronicle of Higher Education. So the article about higher education is not based on what reliable sources say, it is what Rjensen says, essentially; this is a clear violation of Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

^ Lauren Lyster, Yahoo Finance. Only 150 of 3500 U.S. Colleges Are Worth the Investment: Former Secretary of Education Accessed May 7, 2013

Please read the article you are citing. The source it cites doesn't jibe at all with the content of the article. Something isn't right and it seems irresponsible for us to cite what appears to be a problematic article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The comment above “Please read the article you are citing” is condescending, a borderline personal attack, please be kind and remove it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The PayScale source does agree with the Yahoo-Bennett source, essentially. The analysis of return on investment (ROI) examines many variables. It is not a perfect analysis, but no such perfect analysis could be possible. The essential reasoning is sound. Perhaps people may quibble with specific numbers or assumptions or methodology but the basic ideas are generally right, that (1) college can be viewed as an investment of time and money (2) the “payout” is the lifetime income stream after the investment; that (3) colleges can be compared on this basis; that (4) factors can be accounted for such as student debt (and interest on this debt which will lower the ROI), delayed onset of work by four years for graduates, graduation rates, and so forth. Of necessity, average figures were used. It is a somewhat rough-around-the-edges analysis but it rings right to me. It found schools vary considerably in terms of ROI, with Harvey Mudd College taking top spot: invest $213K in a Harvey Mudd education, and one can expect (on average) to have a 30 year net ROI of $1,467,000 – that's a great investment. Conversely, Savannah College of Art and Design taking the bottom spot, with worst return on investment. Why? SCAD costs $177K; only 66% graduate; the 30 year net ROI is -$189,000, notice that it is a negative number, meaning that these graduates do not earn enough on average to justify the investment. If SCAD students took their $177K and invested it in the stock market, they would be much better off, says PayScale and Bennett. Do people disagree with these overall numbers? Look, one could go to Harvey Mudd and not make much money afterwards, or attend SCAD and be a multimillionaire -- these would be exceptions -- essentially I think the analysis seems right to me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Now we may quibble with numbers or assumptions or wish there was more data or more schools analyzed, but why not step back a moment, and look at the bigger picture. This is not some blogger complaining about college being a bad investment. It is a former US Secretary of Education. He is in a position to really qualify as an expert on this topic, is he not? He looked at increasing average student debt, high college costs, the job picture for graduates, and wrote a book with the title Is College Worth it?. Yahoo wrote about it, which constitutes a valid secondary source. So, why did this excellent information get kicked out? And why do two other contributors seem to support this decision? Simple: these people are academics with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, with an unwillingness to look critically at their own industry. Step back; look at things; and work according to Wikipedia's excellent rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course the article should cover the whole range of issues relating to costs, public/private financing, and return on investment. There is a massive academic literature on return to investment alone. Bennett's views are potentially of interest, but when there is so much other published commentary we should look for written analyses, not an interview with a news outlet. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is a "massive academic literature on return to investment", then why if I search the wikiarticle "Higher Education in the United States" with the term "return on investment", it comes up blank? The article does not even mention the term return on investment. So, when I add one reliable source mentioning this term, it gets kicked out? Simple. There is bias here. The key to looking at things objectively is to step back, be detached a bit, and see things as they are.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Another thing here people. I know how gangs operate. I realize I am outnumbered so I do not expect to prevail here and surely views such as Bennett's and Selingo's will be removed. But what I urge you to see is that not following Wikipedia's rules will be counterproductive in the long run, that is, it will help the cause of academia by being neutral, by looking objectively at this industry, by pointing out problems and areas needing improvement, so that these things can be fixed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Because you want to add just one source instead of a section based on multiple sources. And then you lecture us about NPOV, what's that all about? I already said that Bennett's and Selingo's views seem to be relevant and worth adding. They just need adding properly. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Benentt material comes from a couple sentences in an informal interview-- that does not quality as a RS. His experience in the Dept of Education was 25 years ago when, as he says, it was different and college degrees were worth more. Anyone can look at his data and see that schools ranked 500, say, all have a very good ROI. You have to get down near the bottom to get low rates. Bennett never acquired an expertise in statistics is his problem. Furthermore he is a fringe view that is heavily politicized. Rjensen (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I bid adieu.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer I am sorry for that. I propose to restart on this important topic.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen, Itsmejudith, ElKevbo coming 1 yr late to the discussion. Understand frustration on both sides, yours and Tomwsulcer's. am aware of Rjensen's and Tomsulcers history since at least 2012. i think both of you have valid points. i want to see disc. of return on investment in this (presently very messy) article with RS. plse join.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Feel free to propose some edits or just make some. I'm not immersed in this body of literature but I know that there is one although I don't think it's a very sophisticated one (but to be fair it's a very challenging topic) or one that has anything close to universal acceptance and agreement. In terms of sources, I would be wary of those that aren't peer reviewed since this topic has some strong political and cultural overtones. Since this is an area when economists have done quite a bit of work be aware that quite a few publications in that discipline are published without peer review, including pre-prints and (some) working papers, so those sources should be used with caution or omitted completely. ElKevbo (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy Edit

FYI: i will copy-edit, in wiki language WP:CE according to WP:MOS this overgrown article today, to clean up repetitions, remove excessive words, trim editorializing terms, organize sections and flag un-cited statements.

rest assure, i will not delete sourced content. there should be discussion and consensus and then action.

to do list for the near future:

there are unreasonably many pretty college campus pictures without any conceivable connection to the writing next to them, suggestive ofWP:PROMO and hope we can reduce them.
draft a section that discusses ROI with WP:RS , as suggested today on talk page.

please ping me if you have concerns. reverting is for vandals. --Wuerzele (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikispeed, @Wuerzele, generally agree the article needs a makeover.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd try to subcontract this to students in one of the many graduate-level courses on this topic. ElKevbo (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)-

ElKevbo, please try. i ve seen some pretty botched up results though. ce is easier said than done.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Came across this article

About diversity among colleges here haven't had time to study it yet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it offers much value. It's only focusing on a handful of institutions (I've read someone saying that they're ~~only 4%~~ less than 1.5% of the total undergraduate student population at four-year institutions) and excludes virtually all public institutions. I'd wait a while before using it as a source for anything substantive so we can see how it weathers the criticism and if it has any credibility and staying power. ElKevbo (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Spinning off article on the history of higher education in the United States

It is time to greatly enlarge the article on history so I will spin it off into History of higher education in the United States. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI article about free tuition at online Arizona State Univ for Starbucks workers without degrees

FYI article in Money magazine.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Many businesses pay tuition for their employees. Starbucks is not noteworthy in that regard. Rjensen (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is there information in the article about such subsidies; I wonder how much that is a factor in higher ed. Also this article in The Economist; interesting perspective (higher education in US in context of what's happening worldwide to higher ed).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I added some fresh information on tuition reimbursement in section 3.1: Many companies offer tuition reimbursement plans for their employees, in order to make the benefit package more attractive, to upgrade the skill levels and to increase retention. [ref]Colleen Flaherty Manchester, "General human capital and employee mobility: How tuition reimbursement increases retention through sorting and participation." Industrial & Labor Relations Review (2012) 65#4: 951-974. Rjensen (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Source about wealth of universities

FYI Bloomberg report on wealth and endowments of universities.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting NY Times article on state-by-state migrations of students to public colleges

Some states are net 'importers' of college students, others exporters; more info here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Changes in Race & Socioeconomic Status

I've made some edits to the Race and Socioeconomic Status sub-sections under "Selected Issues". I added some more stats and content to discuss how Race & Socioeconomic status affect enrollment, performance, and persistence in higher education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmanrkh (talk • contribs) 22:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Higher education in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Higher education in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Higher education in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100809124520/http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=35&articleid=90&sectionid=549 to http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=35&articleid=90&sectionid=549

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Higher education in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

POV dispute

@Beland: I'm not sure if I understand this cleanup tag on this section. Does the section need to be revised or re-written? Jarble (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jarble: Yes. It currently seems to be a piece of persuasive writing arguing in favor of affirmative action and concluding in Wikipedia's voice that inadequate progress has been made on racial equality, and also dismissing the "mismatch" theory in Wikipedia's voice. There are also some red flag phrases like "very important to note" which evidence Wikipedia expressing an opinion. Opinions need to be attributed to a third party, like advocates or researchers, and in general the "show don't tell" favors just giving the facts and letting readers come to their own conclusions. The section also has problems with overall balance. It seems unlikely that all scholars agree that "higher education has been a source of increasing racial inequality"; if that's the consensus, that needs to be supported by more than one report, and it would be nice to get a quotation from the source to establish that it actually says that. There is also an imbalance in that there is no coverage of people who oppose affirmative action. There are people who oppose racial equality, but they are not a significant viewpoint in this debate. Many of the larger number of people who support racial equality but oppose affirmative action do so because they find all racial discrimination abhorrent, even when it is directed against demographic groups that tend to have higher incomes and educational attainment, like Americans with European or East Asian ancestry. They advocate race-neutral ways of promoting equality, such as taking the top 10% of student from all high schools, or discriminating in favor of students from low-income families or who have personally faced adversity - criteria that would help a student from a poor single-parent household but not say, from a wealthy family in France who happen to be of African descent. It's currently being litigated whether criteria that are not race-blind are legal; see 2015 federal complaints against Harvard University's alleged discriminatory admission practices. -- Beland (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly sources should be used in this article

I encourage more people to write and edit this article on Higher Education in the United States. ElKevbo, please do add scholarly articles. I have added most of the books in the bibliography, including Suzanne Mettler's Degrees of Inequality. Perhaps there should be a subsection on higher education in popular culture, that highlights the wave of media attention on student loan debt and for-profit college closings. Pop culture is a significant part of higher education in the US because it reinforces and reflects ideas and values that influence behavior.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The topics covered by this article are things that are, for the most part, extensively discussed and written about by scholars and experts in peer-reviewed venues and publications so we should rely more on those sources and less on popular press articles. ElKevbo (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I am reiterating this request as CollegeMeltdown has continued to make edits such as:

Paying for college can hurt retirement outcomes for parents of college students. In a Barron's article titled "How Your Kids Can Ruin Your Retirement — and How to Make Sure They Don’t," Reshma Kapadia offers advice to parents on how they can ensure that higher education for their children does not result in diminished retirement quality. ^[1]
Large gifts from donors have exceeded $100 million. ^[2]
In "The Higher Education Apocalypse," USA Today education reporter Lauren Camera speculated that recent closings of schools in New England might be the beginning of a rash of college closures. ^[3]

Individually, edits like these aren't a big problem. But when many of these kinds of edits are made, they drag down the quality and readability of the article because (a) many of the sources are not terribly good (and are not nearly as good as the high quality, scholarly sources that could be located with just a little bit more effort) and (b) the edits are tightly focused on minute details and not integrated into the rest of the article. It's also very annoying that despite repeated requests this editor continues to add bare URLs as references without any effort at providing more details, making work for other editors who have to come behind him or her to clean up.

This article is in pretty bad shape and an editor who routinely adds one or two sentences using only popular press articles and no regard for the larger structure of the article is making it worse. ElKevbo (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Beloit College students demonstration should be preserved in section on "Student conservative groups, free speech, and hate speech"

The story of the March 27, 2019 demonstration by students at Beloit College against Erik Prince must be preserved. If it is not memorable in 2021, then delete most of it.

This incident at Beloit College follows President Donald J. Trump's executive order on free speech at US colleges by only a few days. and it was preceded by several incidents that have stirred the debate between free speech and hate speech, a high visibility issue in US higher education.

Erik Prince created Blackwater, an independent contractor during the Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is the brother of Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education under President Donald J. Trump and an ally to President Trump. These connections, by themselves, make this an important story as the free speech-hate speech debate heats up.

it is also notable that Young Americans for Liberty, the sponsors of the event, are an important conservative-libertarian youth group on US college campuses, along with Turning Point USA.

^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. ElKevbo (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that section belongs in Free speech as it does not have much to do with higher education itself, but with stifling free speech in particular locations. It may even be worth a separate page, since free speech in colleges and universities is a) not a subject restricted to the US and b) has a long and varied history (e.g. free speech protests in Berkeley in the 60's vs Milo Yianoupoulos in 2017 in the same university). This particular protest is given way to much weight in an article on higher education in general. WP:UNDUE/WP:NOTNEWS. Kleuske (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

References

ElKevbo, the demonstration occurred at Beloit College. And it follows a number of incidents at other schools, not just University of California, Berkeley. With the players involved in this incident, including [Erik Prince]] and [Young Americans for Liberty]], their political connections, and Donald Trunp's recent executive order, this is much bigger than defamed agitator Milo Yianoupoulos. Is it ok if I include a smaller entry? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Additional note: Beloit College is in serious financial trouble. Its bond rating is considered "junk." ^[1]CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec x2) No. It's still undue weight and WP:NOTNEWS still applies. Financial trouble is at best suitable for an entry in the article on the college in question. Kleuske (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Kleuske, so should the entire entry about the March 27, 2019 demonstration be deleted or should it be edited? If the event proves to be bigger in importance, should I contact you first, for your approval? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with others, see WP:NOTNEWS. This news story doesn't merit any mention in this article. @CollegeMeltdown: we edit based on consensus. VQuakr (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The Significance of of Ivar Berg and others who have criticized Higher Education in the US for not adequately training people for careers

University of Pennsylvania Professor Ivar Berg was recognized by the New York Times as someone "who made important contributions to the study of higher education, labor markets and industrial sociology." The Times added that "Dr. Berg's classic book, Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery (1970) cast doubt on economists' assertions that people with more education earn more because they are more skilled and productive; instead, employers frequently hire people to work in jobs that do not make use of their education." ^[2]

Berg also wrote the introduction to a reissue of Thorstein Veblen's classic, "The Higher Learning in America."

This book was one of several books and articles that have questioned the value of US higher education. Randall Collins, also at University of Pennsylvania, has written critically about the overuse of college credentials. Unfortunately, these voices have been drowned out by mainstream ideas about the value of higher education. Public opinion, now is changing, and surveys indicate that a substantial part of the US population are skeptical about the value of higher education.

The title, The Great Training Robbery, was even appropriated in a 2016 Harvard Business School analysis criticizing the value of education. ^[3]

Dr. Berg's work is mentioned in multiple sources.^[4]^[5]

As I previously mentioned, Berg's book is also recently mentioned in The History of American Higher Education (3rd edition) by John R. Thelin. It's on page 368 and 423. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 College Admissions Scandal, Sports Gambling, Inequality and Other Scandals Should Be Included

Apparently there is a disagreement on whether the 2019 College Admissions Scandal, and other scandals, should be included in Higher Education in the United States.

The 2019 College Admissions Scandal and related scandals others are important in popular culture, and have exposed US higher education as inherently unequal, unfair, and corrupt.

The 2019 College Cheating Scandal is just "the tip of the iceberg" in understanding about issues such as academic cheating, legacies, and essay mills. ^[6] ^[7]^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12]

Following the threads of US higher education from the 17th century until today, it's obvious that US higher education reflects and reinforces a system of inequality. That's why Craig Steven Wilder's "Ebony and Ivy," Jonathan Kozol's "Savage Inequalities," and "Shame of a Nation, and Suzanne Mettler's "Degrees of Inequality" are so important to this conversation.

At some point, I will want to return the section to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeMeltdown (talk • contribs)

Presumably you are talking about the content removed here, regarding a summary of the information at 2019 college admissions bribery scandal? That was part of the "criticism" section, the removal of which should be a goal for improving this article. This is an article about higher education in the US in general, not about its faults, which should be a balanced percentage of the article overall. The 2019 scandal warrants only a one-sentence mention with a bluelink to the main article, in my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Higher Education and Mental Health

When are reports about the mental health of college students and staff considered worthy of a Wikipedia entry? Looks like a growing concern.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]^[5]

CollegeMeltdown (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There is more than enough information available if you'd like to draft a small section for this article or begin a new article. I removed your latest contribution to this article because it only mentioned a new news article; it made no attempt to cite other literature or offer any synthesis of the broad body of literature in this area. ElKevbo (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's another study titled "Increased Rates of Mental Health Service Utilization by U.S. College Students: 10-Year Population-Level Trends (2007–2017)"

^[6]CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Need a section on Reform and Innovation

US higher education has been in turmoil for several years. College enrollment has been declining steadily since 2010-11. And public opinion about higher education has also been trending downward. High visibility issues in US higher education are mostly negative. But that doesn't mean that innovation and reform are not happening. For example, Spelman College removed its interscholastic sports and put more money into wellness. 2601:82:C380:3E4:2D71:CE46:C697:9BF2 (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Too long

As of this writing, the article is approaching three times the recommended length. It needs a good scrubbing to remove the bloat before we can properly assess is splits are warranted. VQuakr (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Who will be the arbiter of determining what is "bloat" and what gets "scrubbed"? Can we get someone who would be considered an expert, like John Thelin, or do we rely on those who are less informed? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The main decision-making process at Wikipedia is WP:CONSENSUS. Please review WP:THREAD. VQuakr (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Could "College accessibility and success for Latinos in New York City," "Accessibility to college readiness programs," and "Rates of enrollment, graduation and dropping out" be shortened? The information may be important but it seems very specific. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "Criticism of college and university rankings" and "Undocumented students" should also be edited for brevity. However, there should be a discussion before they are severely edited. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Overlong sections could be replaced by a one-paragraph summary and a wikilink to a separate article on that topic.Vgy7ujm (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to add to the grief but I am cleaning up the Higher education article and will be transferring two. sections that are US specific. I agree with Vgy7ujm analysis, and expect the moved text to be swiftly passed on.ClemRutter (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove old information about professors and their political views

I would like to reduce the section on Political Views in academia. I understand there is a need to acknowledge that professors are more likely to be liberal and explain the differences within the ranks, and that research has gone back to the 1970s, but some of this information is old. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do; it's way too long for a subsection that should be mostly pulling from and summarizing existing articles. ElKevbo (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Would like to add "Dysfunction" to Section on "Function"

I would like to add the word "Dysfunctions" to the heading that currently says "Function" I would also like to use the word "Functions" rather than "Function," because arguably higher education in the US has multiple functions.

The history and structure of higher education in the US can be viewed sociologically by looking at its function(s). But all institutions are imperfect. Problems in the system are called "dysfunctions." Genocide and enslavement in the US, for example, were functional for a white supremacist society but dysfunctional for those who were oppressed. ^[7] Today, the high price of college, student loan debt and the adjunctification of college labor could be considered social problems or dysfunctions, even though many people may profit from the situation.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No, absolutely not and definitely yes we should. The word function was chosen because nothing better could be found, it was used as a dustbin for text taken out of the lead, while we decided where to put it. Now we must be carefully to stay on focus- the issue of the function of education as a social control is a major sociological issue and undermines the fundamental beliefs of many political philosophies. At this moment in the articles development and rewriting I do suggest that we sidestep it and come back later, I suspect that this is more within the scope of Education in the United States, but now is in the realm of WP:OR.

--ClemRutter (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Pertinence

It was mentioned earlier, but we should do the MOS:PERTINENCE to all the images- if they fail we erase. Everyone can join in.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Go for it. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

^ https://www.insidehighered.com/editorial-tags/mental-health
^ https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/06/new-study-says-graduate-students-mental-health-crisis
^ https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/29/anxiety-and-depression-are-primary-concerns-students-seeking-counseling-services
^ http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/04/19/anxiety-among-students-study-finds
^ https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/04/18/anxiety-epidemic-brewing-on-college-campuses-researchers-find/
^ https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ps.201800332
^ Wahalng, Jeffreyson (1910?). "ROBERT.K. MERTON: A PARADIGM FOR FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS IN SOCIOLOGY". ResearchGate. Retrieved 20 June 2019. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[CollegeWorthIt-1] Lauren Lyster, Yahoo Finance. Only 150 of 3500 U.S. Colleges Are Worth the Investment: Former Secretary of Education Accessed May 7, 2013

[2] ttps://www.barrons.com/articles/how-to-protect-your-retirement-from-your-kids-51553285595

[3] ttps://www.chronicle.com/article/Major-Private-Gifts-to-Higher/128264

[4] ttps://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-03-22/college-closings-signal-start-of-a-crisis-in-higher-education

[5] ttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/21/president-donald-trump-executive-order-college-free-speech/3232560002/

[6] ttps://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/03/29/trump-miscast-free-speech-protector-but-real-problems-campus-column/3290920002/

[7] ttps://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/29/beloit-cancels-erik-prince-talk-after-student-protests

[8] ttps://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/03/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-finally-admits-he-attended-a-controversial-trump-tower-meeting/

[9] ttps://www.bondbuyer.com/news/struggling-wisconsin-college-tenders-for-restructuring

[10] ttps://www.legacy.com/obituaries/nytimes/obituary.aspx?n=ivar-berg&pid=177227324

[11] ttps://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/16-121_bc0f03ce-27de-4479-a90e-9d78b8da7b67.pdf

[12] ttps://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/23/archives/education-colleges-no-one-has-a-good-word-for-them.html

[13] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=rvaaFSAICtsC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=new+york+times+ivar+berg&source=bl&ots=-OMoFABHJW&sig=ACfU3U33HBipyldI_HT4otU7KPA7yoAV0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQp7vXiLnhAhXnUd8KHbb_AqcQ6AEwDnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20times%20ivar%20berg&f=false

[14] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2019/03/15/the-college-admissions-scandal-is-just-the-tip-of-an-iceberg-of-educational-inequity/

[15] ttps://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/richard-v-reeves-college-admissions-scandal-is-tip-of-the-iceberg.html

[16] ttps://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/college-admissions-scandal-likely-tip-the-iceberg

[17] ttps://www.npr.org/2019/04/08/710953499/how-students-may-be-cheating-their-way-through-college

[18] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/sat-act-cheating-college-admissions.html

[19] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/04/09/lori-loughlin-other-parents-face-additional-charges-college-admissions-scandal/

[20] ttps://abcnews.go.com/US/14-defendants-including-felicity-huffman-plead-guilty-college/story?id=62247364

[21] ttps://www.insidehighered.com/editorial-tags/mental-health

[22] ttps://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/06/new-study-says-graduate-students-mental-health-crisis

[23] ttps://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/29/anxiety-and-depression-are-primary-concerns-students-seeking-counseling-services

[24] ttp://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/04/19/anxiety-among-students-study-finds

[25] ttps://news.berkeley.edu/2019/04/18/anxiety-epidemic-brewing-on-college-campuses-researchers-find/

[26] ttps://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ps.201800332

[27] Wahalng, Jeffreyson (1910?). "ROBERT.K. MERTON: A PARADIGM FOR FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS IN SOCIOLOGY". ResearchGate. Retrieved 20 June 2019. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]