"Education Costs" - Deb Milbrath, Cartoon Movement
Showing posts with label student. Show all posts
Showing posts with label student. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
Privately educated still take most top jobs
Although, this article is highlighting a report on British education system & the resultant employment prospects from the private institutions of that education system, this can easily be extended to everywhere around the world.
Private schools, colleges, & universities in US & Canada are similarly regarded as producing highly talented individuals, who then are employed in top jobs. Although, there are no private universities in Canada, yet, but the cost of education in public universities is skyrocketing, & obtaining that education is becoming a luxury for many. The pricier the degree, the more respect it earns from the industry.
It's the same case in developing countries, like Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil, India, Pakistan, etc. Private education system has merely become the profit-making tool for a few industrialists. Public education system has been eroded or the industry sector doesn't favour the graduates of those. Graduates of private education system are highly regarded in the industry, & even there, the more expensive the degree (i.e. IBA & LUMS), the more respect the grad earns, & hence, obtaining that top spot in the industry becomes that much easier.
Of course, this disparity will continue on, even if the private education system starts taking in students on the basis of merit. The reason being that the graduates of these top private schools have strong alumni networks in the top tiers of industry, who pull their fellow graduates up, while leaving behind the graduates of public education system. This "networking" will continue on. Coupled this networking issue in the developed world with the not-so-strong financial situation of the immigrants there, & you can see that immigrants & their children do not make it to the top tiers of the industry in the developed world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals educated at private schools continue to land the majority of top jobs in leading fields, including law, politics, journalism and the arts ... .
Results published by the Sutton Trust ... show that while the previous decade has shown “small signs” of narrowing inequality levels, often more than 70% of top jobs are given to those who were privately educated.
Only 7% of British youngsters attend private school, but the study showed that 74% of judges and 71% of high ranking military officers attended fee-paying schools.
In journalism, 51% of top print writers were privately educated, as well as 61% of doctors.
Respectively, only 12% of military chiefs were educated in comprehensive schools, and 22% of doctors attended grammar schools. Only one-fifth of leading journalists had a state education.
In politics the gap has narrowed, the report found, with 32% of MPs having attended a private school. But when examining the Tory cabinet, some 50% of the ministers went to independent schools, compared to 13% in Labour’s shadow cabinet.
The report also examined the prevalence of Oxford and Cambridge universities among top ranking positions, and found that alumni from the famous academic institutions were more likely to take high positions.
In law, Oxbridge graduates make up 74% of the top positions, with 54% of journalists having also attended the two universities.
Some 47% of the Conservative cabinet also attended Oxford or Cambridge, more than 10% higher than the shadow cabinet, which features 32% Oxbridge graduates.
The arts is also not exempt from the privately educated/Oxbridge bubble, with award-winning actors and actresses 50% more likely to have had a private education than pop stars. A total of 42% of BAFTA winners were awarded to fee-paying school attendees.
Sir Peter Lampl, chair of the Sutton Trust, said the report showed a need for more social mobility.
“Our research shows that your chances of reaching the top in so many areas of British life are very much greater if you went to an independent school.
“As well as academic achievement, an independent education tends to develop essential skills such as confidence, articulacy and teamwork, which are vital to career success.
“The key to improving social mobility at the top is to open up independent schools to all pupils based on merit not money... as well as support for highly able students in state schools.”
Friday, February 23, 2018
"Graduate Housing Tips" by Steve Breen
"Graduate Housing Tips" - Steve Breen, San Diego Union Tribune, San Diego, California, US
Thursday, March 31, 2016
What's the point of college?
This whole piece from New Yorker is a fantastic one. It's quite a long one, so I will keep my blog post on it rather short.
What I like to say here is that I've been saying what this article is saying for, at least, a year or so. Education nowadays doesn't have the same respect or weight as it used to carry about 5 decades ago. For instance, I met an 18-year-old about 6 months ago who said to me that he is learning to be a salesperson, right after graduating from high school, & have no intention to go to post-secondary school, because business education is learned best out in the field than in a class. So, in essence, he will save thousands upon thousands of dollars in education & will ultimately come out ahead because he will have hands-on work experience coupled with a valuable network. (I couldn't reply since my own experiences are not so great).
Everyone, from Canada to Chile to Egypt to South Africa to Spain to Russia to Australia to Saudi Arabia, loves to talk about how education is essential for everyone, regardless to gender, skin colour, language, religion etc. And, in an ideal & utopian world, it definitely will be ... but, we are not living in an ideal & utopian world. Education has become a business in itself. It has become so expensive to even get a 4-year bachelor's degree that families & students take out thousands of student loans to earn that degree.
But after graduation a serious question needs to be asked is that degree, for which I just paid thousands of dollars (or whatever other currency), worth anything? Personally, my 2 degrees, a Bachelor's in Accounting & an MBA, for which I paid about 100,000 Canadian dollars (excluding my time & effort) in total, & 2 certificates (Six Sigma & Project Management) have earned me a job as a cashier in a local superstore. So, for me, my education was definitely not worth it. I would have been better off by not getting an education & spent my time working in retail, for instance. That decade in education would've saved me some hard cold cash & I would've been a supervisor, or even a manager, of a store by now. The article does point out this fact that how highly educated graduates, even STEM graduates (science, tech, engineering, & mathematics), are working in measly jobs, perhaps, due to technological advancements.
So, education is important but we need to look at its worth. The article states examples of colleges & universities, & a lot of statistics & studies, in trying to answer the primary question of the worth of education. Eventually, it asks what is the purpose of colleges & universities, since their graduates, which are constantly increasing in number, are not really earning that much, & their wages are actually falling. This seems counterintuitive since education is supposed to increase your worth, & not decrease it in the labour market.
A theory the article puts forward is that degrees & certificates perhaps try to signal to potential employers the competency of the candidate. Potential employers are thus merely using the degrees as a filter in the hiring process. Perhaps, that is why, "branding" of a university comes into play. Since, everyone around you is getting a degree, if you want to stand out from the crowd, you need to "buy" a degree from a so-called "prestigious" school. Then, it becomes an arms race, & it is only helping educational institutes & financial services companies (i.e. banks) in making huge profits.
Unfortunately, the article stops short of giving a definite reason why this is happening that education is not paying off for many, nowadays. One reason it gives, with which I do agree, is that this blind corporate race of cost-cutting is increasing more tech solutions implementation with fewer graduates being hired to train for future management positions.
One other reason I would give for education not paying off in modern times is the absence of meritocracy. We all like to think that education improves the personal financial bottom line, but we forget, that it will happen only when the labour market is merit based, which it is not. We all have heard of that accursed word, "networking," which merely implies that your education & qualifications matter less if you know the right people in the right places. Nowadays, employers get so many resumes / CVs / bio-datas, which are all essentially similar, too, that instead of sifting through all of them to find that perfect candidate, employers simply ask the people around them to recommend them a candidate.
This disease of "networking" is very common in developing countries because, due to their large population, & in their push for more education, everyone has a similar educational base. But networking is relatively new in Western countries because up until a few years ago, your education still played a major part what job & earning potential you ended up with in your life. It was somewhat of a meritocracy. But not anymore. Networking disrupts a level playing field, since, your education & qualifications are useless in the face of "how many influential people are your / family's friends".
Anyway, my blog post has become a long one & I would prefer it that you read the article, which is still quite informative & thought-provoking. We all like to think that education is essential to succeed in life but we forget that the world is an unfair place, & in the near future, your education will matter less & your connections will matter more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is one thing most Americans have been able to agree on over the years, it is that getting an education, particularly a college education, is a key to human betterment & prosperity. ... Already, the cost of higher education has become a big issue in the 2016 Presidential campaign. ...
Promoters of higher education have long emphasized its role in meeting civic needs. The Puritans who established Harvard were concerned about a shortage of clergy; during the Progressive Era, John Dewey insisted that a proper education would make people better citizens, with enlarged moral imaginations. Recently, as wage stagnation & rising inequality have emerged as serious problems, the economic arguments for higher education have come to the fore. “Earning a post-secondary degree or credential is no longer just a pathway to opportunity for a talented few,” the White House Web site states. “Rather, it is a prerequisite for the growing jobs of the new economy.” Commentators & academic economists have claimed that college doesn’t merely help individuals get higher-paying jobs; it raises wages throughout the economy & helps ameliorate rising inequality. In an influential 2008 book, “The Race Between Education and Technology,” the Harvard economists Claudia Goldin & Lawrence F. Katz argued that technological progress has dramatically increased the demand for skilled workers, & that, in recent decades, the American educational system has failed to meet the challenge by supplying enough graduates who can carry out the tasks that a high-tech economy requires. “Not so long ago, the American economy grew rapidly and wages grew in tandem, with education playing a large, positive role in both,” they wrote in a subsequent paper. “The challenge now is to revitalize education-based mobility.”
The “message from the media, from the business community, and even from many parts of the government has been that a college degree is more important than ever in order to have a good career,” Peter Cappelli, a professor of management at Wharton, notes in his informative & refreshingly skeptical new book, “Will College Pay Off?” (PublicAffairs). “As a result, families feel even more pressure to send their kids to college. This is at a time when more families find those costs to be a serious burden.” During recent decades, tuition & other charges have risen sharply—many colleges charge more than 50,000 dollars a year in tuition & fees. Even if you factor in the expansion of financial aid, Cappelli reports, “students in the United States pay about four times more than their peers in countries elsewhere.”
Despite the increasing costs — & the claims about a shortage of college graduates — the number of people attending & graduating from four-year educational institutions keeps going up. In the 2000-01 academic year, American colleges awarded almost 1.3 million bachelor’s degrees. A decade later, the figure had jumped nearly 40%, to more than 1.7 million. About 70% of all high-school graduates now go on to college, & half of all Americans between the ages of 25 & 34 have a college degree. That’s a big change. In 1980, only 1 in 6 Americans 25 & older were college graduates. 50 years ago, it was fewer than 1 in 10. To cater to all the new students, colleges keep expanding & adding courses, many of them vocationally inclined. At Kansas State, undergraduates can major in Bakery Science & Management or Wildlife & Outdoor Enterprise Management. They can minor in Unmanned Aircraft Systems or Pet Food Science. Oklahoma State offers a degree in Fire Protection & Safety Engineering & Technology. At Utica College, you can major in Economic Crime Detection.
In the fast-growing for-profit college sector, which now accounts for more than 10% of all students, vocational degrees are the norm. DeVry University — which last year taught more than 60,000 students, at more than 75 campuses — offers majors in everything from multimedia design & development to health-care administration. On its Web site, DeVry boasts, “In 2013, 90% of DeVry University associate and bachelor’s degree grads actively seeking employment had careers in their field within six months of graduation.” That sounds impressive — until you notice that the figure includes those graduates who had jobs in their field before graduation. (Many DeVry students are working adults who attend college part-time to further their careers.) Nor is the phrase “in their field” clearly defined. “Would you be okay rolling the dice on a degree in communications based on information like that?” Cappelli writes. He notes that research by the nonprofit National Association of Colleges & Employers found that, in the same year, just 6.5% of graduates with communications degrees were offered jobs in the field. It may be unfair to single out DeVry, which is one of the more reputable for-profit education providers. But the example illustrates Cappelli’s larger point: many of the claims that are made about higher education don’t stand up to scrutiny.
“It is certainly true that college has been life changing for most people and a tremendous financial investment for many of them,” Cappelli writes. “It is also true that for some people, it has been financially crippling. . . .The world of college education is different now than it was a generation ago, when many of the people driving policy decisions on education went to college, and the theoretical ideas about why college should pay off do not comport well with the reality.”
No idea has had more influence on education policy than the notion that colleges teach their students specific, marketable skills, which they can use to get a good job. Economists refer to this as the “human capital” theory of education, & for the past 20 or 30 years it has gone largely unchallenged. If you’ve completed a two-year associate’s degree, you’ve got more “human capital” than a high-school graduate. And if you’ve completed a four-year bachelor’s degree you’ve got more “human capital” than someone who attended a community college. Once you enter the labor market, the theory says, you will be rewarded with a better job, brighter career prospects, & higher wages.
There’s no doubt that college graduates earn more money, on average, than people who don’t have a degree. And for many years the so-called “college wage premium” grew. In 1970, according to a recent study by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, people with a bachelor’s degree earned about 60,000 dollars a year, on average, & people with a high-school diploma earned about 45,000 dollars. 35 years later, in 2005, the average earnings of college graduates had risen to more than 70,000 dollars, while high-school graduates had seen their earnings fall slightly. (All these figures are inflation-adjusted.) The fact that the college wage premium went up at a time when the supply of graduates was expanding significantly seemed to confirm the Goldin-Katz theory that technological change was creating an ever-increasing demand for workers with a lot of human capital.
During the past decade or so, however, a number of things have happened that don’t easily mesh with that theory. If college graduates remain in short supply, their wages should still be rising. But they aren’t. In 2001, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank in Washington, workers with undergraduate degrees (but not graduate degrees) earned, on average, $30.05 an hour; last year, they earned $29.55 an hour. Other sources show even more dramatic falls. “Between 2001 and 2013, the average wage of workers with a bachelor’s degree declined 10.3 percent, and the average wage of those with an associate’s degree declined 11.1 percent,” the New York Fed reported in its study. Wages have been falling most steeply of all among newly minted college graduates. And jobless rates have been rising. In 2007, 5.5% of college graduates under the age of 25 were out of work. Today, the figure is close to 9%. If getting a bachelor’s degree is meant to guarantee entry to an arena in which jobs are plentiful & wages rise steadily, the education system has been failing for some time.
And, while college graduates are still doing a lot better than nongraduates, some studies show that the earnings gap has stopped growing. The figures need careful parsing. If you lump college graduates in with people with advanced degrees, the picture looks brighter. But almost all the recent gains have gone to folks with graduate degrees. “The four-year-degree premium has remained flat over the past decade,” the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland reported. And one of the main reasons it went up in the first place wasn’t that college graduates were enjoying significantly higher wages. It was that the earnings of nongraduates were falling.
Many students & their families extend themselves to pay for a college education out of fear of falling into the low-wage economy. That’s perfectly understandable. But how sound an investment is it? One way to figure this out is to treat a college degree like a stock or a bond & compare the cost of obtaining one with the accumulated returns that it generates over the years. (In this case, the returns come in the form of wages over & above those earned by people who don’t hold degrees.) When the research firm PayScale did this a few years ago, it found that the average inflation-adjusted return on a college education is about 7%, which is a bit lower than the historical rate of return on the stock market. Cappelli cites this study along with one from the Hamilton Project, a Washington-based research group that came up with a much higher figure — about 15% — but by assuming, for example, that all college students graduate in 4 years. (In fact, the four-year graduation rate for full-time, first-degree students is less than 40%, & the six-year graduation rate is less than 60%.)
These types of studies, & there are lots of them, usually find that the financial benefits of getting a college degree are much larger than the financial costs. But Cappelli points out that for parents & students the average figures may not mean much, because they disguise enormous differences in outcomes from school to school. He cites a survey, carried out by PayScale for Businessweek in 2012, that showed that students who attend M.I.T., Caltech, & Harvey Mudd College enjoy an annual return of more than 10% on their “investment.” But the survey also found almost 200 colleges where students, on average, never fully recouped the costs of their education. “The big news about the payoff from college should be the incredible variation in it across colleges,” Cappelli writes. “Looking at the actual return on the costs of attending college, careful analyses suggest that the payoff from many college programs—as much as 1 in 4—is actually negative. Incredibly, the schools seem to add nothing to the market value of the students.”
So what purpose does college really serve for students & employers? Before the human-capital theory became so popular, there was another view of higher education—as, in part, a filter, or screening device, that sorted individuals according to their aptitudes & conveyed this information to businesses & other hiring institutions. By completing a four-year degree, students could signal to potential employers that they had a certain level of cognitive competence & could carry out assigned tasks & work in a group setting. But a college education didn’t necessarily imbue students with specific work skills that employers needed, or make them more productive.
Kenneth Arrow, one of the giants of twentieth-century economics, came up with this account, & if you take it seriously you can’t assume that it’s always a good thing to persuade more people to go to college. If almost everybody has a college degree, getting one doesn’t differentiate you from the pack. To get the job you want, you might have to go to a fancy (& expensive) college, or get a higher degree. Education turns into an arms race, which primarily benefits the arms manufacturers—in this case, colleges & universities.
The screening model isn’t very fashionable these days, partly because it seems perverse to suggest that education doesn’t boost productivity. But there’s quite a bit of evidence that seems to support Arrow’s theory. In recent years, more jobs have come to demand a college degree as an entry requirement, even though the demands of the jobs haven’t changed much. Some nursing positions are on the list, along with jobs for executive secretaries, salespeople, & distribution managers. According to one study, just 20% of executive assistants & insurance-claims clerks have college degrees but more than 45% of the job openings in the field require one. “This suggests that employers may be relying on a B.A. as a broad recruitment filter that may or may not correspond to specific capabilities needed to do the job,” the study concluded.
It is well established that students who go to elite colleges tend to earn more than graduates of less selective institutions. But is this because Harvard & Princeton do a better job of teaching valuable skills than other places, or because employers believe that they get more talented students to begin with? An exercise carried out by Lauren Rivera, of the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern, strongly suggests that it’s the latter. Rivera interviewed more than a hundred recruiters from investment banks, law firms, & management consulting firms, & she found that they recruited almost exclusively from the very top-ranked schools, & simply ignored most other applicants. The recruiters didn’t pay much attention to things like grades & majors. “It was not the content of education that elite employers valued but rather its prestige,” Rivera concluded.
If higher education serves primarily as a sorting mechanism, that might help explain another disturbing development: the tendency of many college graduates to take jobs that don’t require college degrees. Practically everyone seems to know a well-educated young person who is working in a bar or a mundane clerical job, because he or she can’t find anything better. Doubtless, the Great Recession & its aftermath are partly to blame. But something deeper, & more lasting, also seems to be happening.
In the Goldin-Katz view of things, technological progress generates an ever-increasing need for highly educated, highly skilled workers. But, beginning in about 2000, for reasons that are still not fully understood, the pace of job creation in high-paying, highly skilled fields slowed significantly. To demonstrate this, 3 Canadian economists, Paul Beaudry, David A. Green, & Benjamin M. Sand, divided the US workforce into a hundred occupations, ranked by their average wages, & looked at how employment has changed in each category. Since 2000, the economists showed, the demand for highly educated workers declined, while job growth in low-paying occupations increased strongly. “High-skilled workers have moved down the occupational ladder and have begun to perform jobs traditionally performed by lower-skilled workers,” they concluded, thus “pushing low-skilled workers even further down the occupational ladder.”
Increasingly, the competition for jobs is taking place in areas of the labor market where college graduates didn’t previously tend to compete. As Beaudry, Green, & Sand put it, “having a B.A. is less about obtaining access to high paying managerial and technology jobs and more about beating out less educated workers for the Barista or clerical job.” Even many graduates in science, technology, engineering, & mathematics—the so-called STEM subjects, which receive so much official encouragement—are having a tough time getting the jobs they’d like. Cappelli reports that only about a fifth of recent graduates with STEM degrees got jobs that made use of that training. “The evidence for recent grads suggests clearly that there is no overall shortage of STEM grads,” he writes.
Why is this happening? The short answer is that nobody knows for sure. One theory is that corporate cost-cutting, having thinned the ranks of workers on the factory floor & in routine office jobs, is now targeting supervisors, managers, & other highly educated people. Another theory is that technological progress, after favoring highly educated workers for a long time, is now turning on them. With rapid advances in processing power, data analysis, voice recognition, & other forms of artificial intelligence, computers can perform tasks that were previously carried out by college graduates, such as analyzing trends, translating foreign-language documents, & filing tax returns. In “The Second Machine Age” (Norton), the M.I.T. professors Erik Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee sketch a future where computers will start replacing doctors, lawyers, & many other highly educated professionals. “As digital labor becomes more pervasive, capable, and powerful,” they write, “companies will be increasingly unwilling to pay people wages that they’ll accept, and that will allow them to maintain the standard of living to which they’ve been accustomed.”
Cappelli stresses the change in corporate hiring patterns. In the old days, Fortune 500 companies such as General Motors, Citigroup, & I.B.M. took on large numbers of college graduates & trained them for a lifetime at the company. But corporations now invest less in education & training, &, instead of promoting someone, or finding someone in the company to fill a specialized role, they tend to hire from outside. Grooming the next generation of leadership is much less of a concern. “What employers want from college graduates now is the same thing they want from applicants who have been out of school for years, and that is job skills and the ability to contribute now,” Cappelli writes. “That change is fundamental, and it is the reason that getting a good job out of college is now such a challenge.”
Obtaining a vocational degree or certificate is one strategy that many students employ to make themselves attractive to employers, &, on the face of it, this seems sensible. If you’d like to be a radiology technician, shouldn’t you get a B.A. in radiology? If you want to run a bakery, why not apply to Kansas State & sign up for that major in Bakery Science? But narrowly focussed degrees are risky. “If you graduate in a year when gambling is up and the casinos like your casino management degree, you probably have hit it big,” Cappelli writes. “If they aren’t hiring when you graduate, you may be even worse off getting a first job with that degree anywhere else precisely because it was so tuned to that group of employers.” During the dot-com era, enrollment in computer-science & information-technology programs rose sharply. After the bursting of the stock-market bubble, many of these graduates couldn’t find work. “Employers who say that we need more engineers or IT grads are not promising to hire them when they graduate in four years,” Cappelli notes. “Pushing kids into a field like health care because someone believes there is a need there now will not guarantee that they all get jobs &, if they do, that those jobs will be as good as workers in that field have now.”
So what’s the solution? Some people believe that online learning will provide a viable low-cost alternative to a live-in college education. ... Another approach is to direct more students & resources to two-year community colleges & other educational institutions that cost less than four-year colleges. President Obama recently called for all qualified high-school students to be guaranteed a place in community college, & for tuition fees to be eliminated. Such policies would reverse recent history. In a new book, “Learning by Doing: The Real Connection between Innovation, Wages, and Wealth” (Yale), James Bessen, a technology entrepreneur who also teaches at Boston University School of Law, points out that “the policy trend over the last decade has been to starve community colleges in order to feed four-year colleges, especially private research universities.” Some of the discrepancies are glaring. Richard Vedder, who teaches economics at Ohio University, calculated that in 2010 Princeton, which had an endowment of close to fifteen billion dollars, received state & federal benefits equivalent to roughly 50,000 dollars per student, whereas the nearby College of New Jersey got benefits of just 2,000 dollars per student. There are sound reasons for rewarding excellence & sponsoring institutions that do important scientific research. But is a twenty-five-to-one difference in government support really justified?
Perhaps the strongest argument for caring about higher education is that it can increase social mobility, regardless of whether the human-capital theory or the signalling theory is correct. A recent study by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco showed that children who are born into households in the poorest fifth of the income distribution are 6 times as likely to reach the top fifth if they graduate from college. Providing access to college for more kids from deprived backgrounds helps nurture talents that might otherwise go to waste, & it’s the right thing to do. (Of course, if college attendance were practically universal, having a degree would send a weaker signal to employers.) But increasing the number of graduates seems unlikely to reverse the over-all decline of high-paying jobs, & it won’t resolve the income-inequality problem, either. As the economist Lawrence Summers & two colleagues showed in a recent simulation, even if we magically summoned up college degrees for a tenth of all the working-age American men who don’t have them—by historical standards, a big boost in college-graduation rates—we’d scarcely change the existing concentration of income at the very top of the earnings distribution, where C.E.O.s & hedge-fund managers live.
Being more realistic about the role that college degrees play would help families & politicians make better choices. It could also help us appreciate the actual merits of a traditional broad-based education, often called a liberal-arts education, rather than trying to reduce everything to an economic cost-benefit analysis. “To be clear, the idea is not that there will be a big financial payoff to a liberal arts degree,” Cappelli writes. “It is that there is no guarantee of a payoff from very practical, work-based degrees either, yet that is all those degrees promise. For liberal arts, the claim is different and seems more accurate, that it will enrich your life and provide lessons that extend beyond any individual job. There are centuries of experience providing support for that notion.”
What I like to say here is that I've been saying what this article is saying for, at least, a year or so. Education nowadays doesn't have the same respect or weight as it used to carry about 5 decades ago. For instance, I met an 18-year-old about 6 months ago who said to me that he is learning to be a salesperson, right after graduating from high school, & have no intention to go to post-secondary school, because business education is learned best out in the field than in a class. So, in essence, he will save thousands upon thousands of dollars in education & will ultimately come out ahead because he will have hands-on work experience coupled with a valuable network. (I couldn't reply since my own experiences are not so great).
Everyone, from Canada to Chile to Egypt to South Africa to Spain to Russia to Australia to Saudi Arabia, loves to talk about how education is essential for everyone, regardless to gender, skin colour, language, religion etc. And, in an ideal & utopian world, it definitely will be ... but, we are not living in an ideal & utopian world. Education has become a business in itself. It has become so expensive to even get a 4-year bachelor's degree that families & students take out thousands of student loans to earn that degree.
But after graduation a serious question needs to be asked is that degree, for which I just paid thousands of dollars (or whatever other currency), worth anything? Personally, my 2 degrees, a Bachelor's in Accounting & an MBA, for which I paid about 100,000 Canadian dollars (excluding my time & effort) in total, & 2 certificates (Six Sigma & Project Management) have earned me a job as a cashier in a local superstore. So, for me, my education was definitely not worth it. I would have been better off by not getting an education & spent my time working in retail, for instance. That decade in education would've saved me some hard cold cash & I would've been a supervisor, or even a manager, of a store by now. The article does point out this fact that how highly educated graduates, even STEM graduates (science, tech, engineering, & mathematics), are working in measly jobs, perhaps, due to technological advancements.
So, education is important but we need to look at its worth. The article states examples of colleges & universities, & a lot of statistics & studies, in trying to answer the primary question of the worth of education. Eventually, it asks what is the purpose of colleges & universities, since their graduates, which are constantly increasing in number, are not really earning that much, & their wages are actually falling. This seems counterintuitive since education is supposed to increase your worth, & not decrease it in the labour market.
A theory the article puts forward is that degrees & certificates perhaps try to signal to potential employers the competency of the candidate. Potential employers are thus merely using the degrees as a filter in the hiring process. Perhaps, that is why, "branding" of a university comes into play. Since, everyone around you is getting a degree, if you want to stand out from the crowd, you need to "buy" a degree from a so-called "prestigious" school. Then, it becomes an arms race, & it is only helping educational institutes & financial services companies (i.e. banks) in making huge profits.
Unfortunately, the article stops short of giving a definite reason why this is happening that education is not paying off for many, nowadays. One reason it gives, with which I do agree, is that this blind corporate race of cost-cutting is increasing more tech solutions implementation with fewer graduates being hired to train for future management positions.
One other reason I would give for education not paying off in modern times is the absence of meritocracy. We all like to think that education improves the personal financial bottom line, but we forget, that it will happen only when the labour market is merit based, which it is not. We all have heard of that accursed word, "networking," which merely implies that your education & qualifications matter less if you know the right people in the right places. Nowadays, employers get so many resumes / CVs / bio-datas, which are all essentially similar, too, that instead of sifting through all of them to find that perfect candidate, employers simply ask the people around them to recommend them a candidate.
This disease of "networking" is very common in developing countries because, due to their large population, & in their push for more education, everyone has a similar educational base. But networking is relatively new in Western countries because up until a few years ago, your education still played a major part what job & earning potential you ended up with in your life. It was somewhat of a meritocracy. But not anymore. Networking disrupts a level playing field, since, your education & qualifications are useless in the face of "how many influential people are your / family's friends".
Anyway, my blog post has become a long one & I would prefer it that you read the article, which is still quite informative & thought-provoking. We all like to think that education is essential to succeed in life but we forget that the world is an unfair place, & in the near future, your education will matter less & your connections will matter more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is one thing most Americans have been able to agree on over the years, it is that getting an education, particularly a college education, is a key to human betterment & prosperity. ... Already, the cost of higher education has become a big issue in the 2016 Presidential campaign. ...
Promoters of higher education have long emphasized its role in meeting civic needs. The Puritans who established Harvard were concerned about a shortage of clergy; during the Progressive Era, John Dewey insisted that a proper education would make people better citizens, with enlarged moral imaginations. Recently, as wage stagnation & rising inequality have emerged as serious problems, the economic arguments for higher education have come to the fore. “Earning a post-secondary degree or credential is no longer just a pathway to opportunity for a talented few,” the White House Web site states. “Rather, it is a prerequisite for the growing jobs of the new economy.” Commentators & academic economists have claimed that college doesn’t merely help individuals get higher-paying jobs; it raises wages throughout the economy & helps ameliorate rising inequality. In an influential 2008 book, “The Race Between Education and Technology,” the Harvard economists Claudia Goldin & Lawrence F. Katz argued that technological progress has dramatically increased the demand for skilled workers, & that, in recent decades, the American educational system has failed to meet the challenge by supplying enough graduates who can carry out the tasks that a high-tech economy requires. “Not so long ago, the American economy grew rapidly and wages grew in tandem, with education playing a large, positive role in both,” they wrote in a subsequent paper. “The challenge now is to revitalize education-based mobility.”
The “message from the media, from the business community, and even from many parts of the government has been that a college degree is more important than ever in order to have a good career,” Peter Cappelli, a professor of management at Wharton, notes in his informative & refreshingly skeptical new book, “Will College Pay Off?” (PublicAffairs). “As a result, families feel even more pressure to send their kids to college. This is at a time when more families find those costs to be a serious burden.” During recent decades, tuition & other charges have risen sharply—many colleges charge more than 50,000 dollars a year in tuition & fees. Even if you factor in the expansion of financial aid, Cappelli reports, “students in the United States pay about four times more than their peers in countries elsewhere.”
Despite the increasing costs — & the claims about a shortage of college graduates — the number of people attending & graduating from four-year educational institutions keeps going up. In the 2000-01 academic year, American colleges awarded almost 1.3 million bachelor’s degrees. A decade later, the figure had jumped nearly 40%, to more than 1.7 million. About 70% of all high-school graduates now go on to college, & half of all Americans between the ages of 25 & 34 have a college degree. That’s a big change. In 1980, only 1 in 6 Americans 25 & older were college graduates. 50 years ago, it was fewer than 1 in 10. To cater to all the new students, colleges keep expanding & adding courses, many of them vocationally inclined. At Kansas State, undergraduates can major in Bakery Science & Management or Wildlife & Outdoor Enterprise Management. They can minor in Unmanned Aircraft Systems or Pet Food Science. Oklahoma State offers a degree in Fire Protection & Safety Engineering & Technology. At Utica College, you can major in Economic Crime Detection.
In the fast-growing for-profit college sector, which now accounts for more than 10% of all students, vocational degrees are the norm. DeVry University — which last year taught more than 60,000 students, at more than 75 campuses — offers majors in everything from multimedia design & development to health-care administration. On its Web site, DeVry boasts, “In 2013, 90% of DeVry University associate and bachelor’s degree grads actively seeking employment had careers in their field within six months of graduation.” That sounds impressive — until you notice that the figure includes those graduates who had jobs in their field before graduation. (Many DeVry students are working adults who attend college part-time to further their careers.) Nor is the phrase “in their field” clearly defined. “Would you be okay rolling the dice on a degree in communications based on information like that?” Cappelli writes. He notes that research by the nonprofit National Association of Colleges & Employers found that, in the same year, just 6.5% of graduates with communications degrees were offered jobs in the field. It may be unfair to single out DeVry, which is one of the more reputable for-profit education providers. But the example illustrates Cappelli’s larger point: many of the claims that are made about higher education don’t stand up to scrutiny.
“It is certainly true that college has been life changing for most people and a tremendous financial investment for many of them,” Cappelli writes. “It is also true that for some people, it has been financially crippling. . . .The world of college education is different now than it was a generation ago, when many of the people driving policy decisions on education went to college, and the theoretical ideas about why college should pay off do not comport well with the reality.”
No idea has had more influence on education policy than the notion that colleges teach their students specific, marketable skills, which they can use to get a good job. Economists refer to this as the “human capital” theory of education, & for the past 20 or 30 years it has gone largely unchallenged. If you’ve completed a two-year associate’s degree, you’ve got more “human capital” than a high-school graduate. And if you’ve completed a four-year bachelor’s degree you’ve got more “human capital” than someone who attended a community college. Once you enter the labor market, the theory says, you will be rewarded with a better job, brighter career prospects, & higher wages.
There’s no doubt that college graduates earn more money, on average, than people who don’t have a degree. And for many years the so-called “college wage premium” grew. In 1970, according to a recent study by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, people with a bachelor’s degree earned about 60,000 dollars a year, on average, & people with a high-school diploma earned about 45,000 dollars. 35 years later, in 2005, the average earnings of college graduates had risen to more than 70,000 dollars, while high-school graduates had seen their earnings fall slightly. (All these figures are inflation-adjusted.) The fact that the college wage premium went up at a time when the supply of graduates was expanding significantly seemed to confirm the Goldin-Katz theory that technological change was creating an ever-increasing demand for workers with a lot of human capital.
During the past decade or so, however, a number of things have happened that don’t easily mesh with that theory. If college graduates remain in short supply, their wages should still be rising. But they aren’t. In 2001, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank in Washington, workers with undergraduate degrees (but not graduate degrees) earned, on average, $30.05 an hour; last year, they earned $29.55 an hour. Other sources show even more dramatic falls. “Between 2001 and 2013, the average wage of workers with a bachelor’s degree declined 10.3 percent, and the average wage of those with an associate’s degree declined 11.1 percent,” the New York Fed reported in its study. Wages have been falling most steeply of all among newly minted college graduates. And jobless rates have been rising. In 2007, 5.5% of college graduates under the age of 25 were out of work. Today, the figure is close to 9%. If getting a bachelor’s degree is meant to guarantee entry to an arena in which jobs are plentiful & wages rise steadily, the education system has been failing for some time.
And, while college graduates are still doing a lot better than nongraduates, some studies show that the earnings gap has stopped growing. The figures need careful parsing. If you lump college graduates in with people with advanced degrees, the picture looks brighter. But almost all the recent gains have gone to folks with graduate degrees. “The four-year-degree premium has remained flat over the past decade,” the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland reported. And one of the main reasons it went up in the first place wasn’t that college graduates were enjoying significantly higher wages. It was that the earnings of nongraduates were falling.
Many students & their families extend themselves to pay for a college education out of fear of falling into the low-wage economy. That’s perfectly understandable. But how sound an investment is it? One way to figure this out is to treat a college degree like a stock or a bond & compare the cost of obtaining one with the accumulated returns that it generates over the years. (In this case, the returns come in the form of wages over & above those earned by people who don’t hold degrees.) When the research firm PayScale did this a few years ago, it found that the average inflation-adjusted return on a college education is about 7%, which is a bit lower than the historical rate of return on the stock market. Cappelli cites this study along with one from the Hamilton Project, a Washington-based research group that came up with a much higher figure — about 15% — but by assuming, for example, that all college students graduate in 4 years. (In fact, the four-year graduation rate for full-time, first-degree students is less than 40%, & the six-year graduation rate is less than 60%.)
These types of studies, & there are lots of them, usually find that the financial benefits of getting a college degree are much larger than the financial costs. But Cappelli points out that for parents & students the average figures may not mean much, because they disguise enormous differences in outcomes from school to school. He cites a survey, carried out by PayScale for Businessweek in 2012, that showed that students who attend M.I.T., Caltech, & Harvey Mudd College enjoy an annual return of more than 10% on their “investment.” But the survey also found almost 200 colleges where students, on average, never fully recouped the costs of their education. “The big news about the payoff from college should be the incredible variation in it across colleges,” Cappelli writes. “Looking at the actual return on the costs of attending college, careful analyses suggest that the payoff from many college programs—as much as 1 in 4—is actually negative. Incredibly, the schools seem to add nothing to the market value of the students.”
So what purpose does college really serve for students & employers? Before the human-capital theory became so popular, there was another view of higher education—as, in part, a filter, or screening device, that sorted individuals according to their aptitudes & conveyed this information to businesses & other hiring institutions. By completing a four-year degree, students could signal to potential employers that they had a certain level of cognitive competence & could carry out assigned tasks & work in a group setting. But a college education didn’t necessarily imbue students with specific work skills that employers needed, or make them more productive.
Kenneth Arrow, one of the giants of twentieth-century economics, came up with this account, & if you take it seriously you can’t assume that it’s always a good thing to persuade more people to go to college. If almost everybody has a college degree, getting one doesn’t differentiate you from the pack. To get the job you want, you might have to go to a fancy (& expensive) college, or get a higher degree. Education turns into an arms race, which primarily benefits the arms manufacturers—in this case, colleges & universities.
The screening model isn’t very fashionable these days, partly because it seems perverse to suggest that education doesn’t boost productivity. But there’s quite a bit of evidence that seems to support Arrow’s theory. In recent years, more jobs have come to demand a college degree as an entry requirement, even though the demands of the jobs haven’t changed much. Some nursing positions are on the list, along with jobs for executive secretaries, salespeople, & distribution managers. According to one study, just 20% of executive assistants & insurance-claims clerks have college degrees but more than 45% of the job openings in the field require one. “This suggests that employers may be relying on a B.A. as a broad recruitment filter that may or may not correspond to specific capabilities needed to do the job,” the study concluded.
It is well established that students who go to elite colleges tend to earn more than graduates of less selective institutions. But is this because Harvard & Princeton do a better job of teaching valuable skills than other places, or because employers believe that they get more talented students to begin with? An exercise carried out by Lauren Rivera, of the Kellogg School of Management, at Northwestern, strongly suggests that it’s the latter. Rivera interviewed more than a hundred recruiters from investment banks, law firms, & management consulting firms, & she found that they recruited almost exclusively from the very top-ranked schools, & simply ignored most other applicants. The recruiters didn’t pay much attention to things like grades & majors. “It was not the content of education that elite employers valued but rather its prestige,” Rivera concluded.
If higher education serves primarily as a sorting mechanism, that might help explain another disturbing development: the tendency of many college graduates to take jobs that don’t require college degrees. Practically everyone seems to know a well-educated young person who is working in a bar or a mundane clerical job, because he or she can’t find anything better. Doubtless, the Great Recession & its aftermath are partly to blame. But something deeper, & more lasting, also seems to be happening.
In the Goldin-Katz view of things, technological progress generates an ever-increasing need for highly educated, highly skilled workers. But, beginning in about 2000, for reasons that are still not fully understood, the pace of job creation in high-paying, highly skilled fields slowed significantly. To demonstrate this, 3 Canadian economists, Paul Beaudry, David A. Green, & Benjamin M. Sand, divided the US workforce into a hundred occupations, ranked by their average wages, & looked at how employment has changed in each category. Since 2000, the economists showed, the demand for highly educated workers declined, while job growth in low-paying occupations increased strongly. “High-skilled workers have moved down the occupational ladder and have begun to perform jobs traditionally performed by lower-skilled workers,” they concluded, thus “pushing low-skilled workers even further down the occupational ladder.”
Increasingly, the competition for jobs is taking place in areas of the labor market where college graduates didn’t previously tend to compete. As Beaudry, Green, & Sand put it, “having a B.A. is less about obtaining access to high paying managerial and technology jobs and more about beating out less educated workers for the Barista or clerical job.” Even many graduates in science, technology, engineering, & mathematics—the so-called STEM subjects, which receive so much official encouragement—are having a tough time getting the jobs they’d like. Cappelli reports that only about a fifth of recent graduates with STEM degrees got jobs that made use of that training. “The evidence for recent grads suggests clearly that there is no overall shortage of STEM grads,” he writes.
Why is this happening? The short answer is that nobody knows for sure. One theory is that corporate cost-cutting, having thinned the ranks of workers on the factory floor & in routine office jobs, is now targeting supervisors, managers, & other highly educated people. Another theory is that technological progress, after favoring highly educated workers for a long time, is now turning on them. With rapid advances in processing power, data analysis, voice recognition, & other forms of artificial intelligence, computers can perform tasks that were previously carried out by college graduates, such as analyzing trends, translating foreign-language documents, & filing tax returns. In “The Second Machine Age” (Norton), the M.I.T. professors Erik Brynjolfsson & Andrew McAfee sketch a future where computers will start replacing doctors, lawyers, & many other highly educated professionals. “As digital labor becomes more pervasive, capable, and powerful,” they write, “companies will be increasingly unwilling to pay people wages that they’ll accept, and that will allow them to maintain the standard of living to which they’ve been accustomed.”
Cappelli stresses the change in corporate hiring patterns. In the old days, Fortune 500 companies such as General Motors, Citigroup, & I.B.M. took on large numbers of college graduates & trained them for a lifetime at the company. But corporations now invest less in education & training, &, instead of promoting someone, or finding someone in the company to fill a specialized role, they tend to hire from outside. Grooming the next generation of leadership is much less of a concern. “What employers want from college graduates now is the same thing they want from applicants who have been out of school for years, and that is job skills and the ability to contribute now,” Cappelli writes. “That change is fundamental, and it is the reason that getting a good job out of college is now such a challenge.”
Obtaining a vocational degree or certificate is one strategy that many students employ to make themselves attractive to employers, &, on the face of it, this seems sensible. If you’d like to be a radiology technician, shouldn’t you get a B.A. in radiology? If you want to run a bakery, why not apply to Kansas State & sign up for that major in Bakery Science? But narrowly focussed degrees are risky. “If you graduate in a year when gambling is up and the casinos like your casino management degree, you probably have hit it big,” Cappelli writes. “If they aren’t hiring when you graduate, you may be even worse off getting a first job with that degree anywhere else precisely because it was so tuned to that group of employers.” During the dot-com era, enrollment in computer-science & information-technology programs rose sharply. After the bursting of the stock-market bubble, many of these graduates couldn’t find work. “Employers who say that we need more engineers or IT grads are not promising to hire them when they graduate in four years,” Cappelli notes. “Pushing kids into a field like health care because someone believes there is a need there now will not guarantee that they all get jobs &, if they do, that those jobs will be as good as workers in that field have now.”
So what’s the solution? Some people believe that online learning will provide a viable low-cost alternative to a live-in college education. ... Another approach is to direct more students & resources to two-year community colleges & other educational institutions that cost less than four-year colleges. President Obama recently called for all qualified high-school students to be guaranteed a place in community college, & for tuition fees to be eliminated. Such policies would reverse recent history. In a new book, “Learning by Doing: The Real Connection between Innovation, Wages, and Wealth” (Yale), James Bessen, a technology entrepreneur who also teaches at Boston University School of Law, points out that “the policy trend over the last decade has been to starve community colleges in order to feed four-year colleges, especially private research universities.” Some of the discrepancies are glaring. Richard Vedder, who teaches economics at Ohio University, calculated that in 2010 Princeton, which had an endowment of close to fifteen billion dollars, received state & federal benefits equivalent to roughly 50,000 dollars per student, whereas the nearby College of New Jersey got benefits of just 2,000 dollars per student. There are sound reasons for rewarding excellence & sponsoring institutions that do important scientific research. But is a twenty-five-to-one difference in government support really justified?
Perhaps the strongest argument for caring about higher education is that it can increase social mobility, regardless of whether the human-capital theory or the signalling theory is correct. A recent study by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco showed that children who are born into households in the poorest fifth of the income distribution are 6 times as likely to reach the top fifth if they graduate from college. Providing access to college for more kids from deprived backgrounds helps nurture talents that might otherwise go to waste, & it’s the right thing to do. (Of course, if college attendance were practically universal, having a degree would send a weaker signal to employers.) But increasing the number of graduates seems unlikely to reverse the over-all decline of high-paying jobs, & it won’t resolve the income-inequality problem, either. As the economist Lawrence Summers & two colleagues showed in a recent simulation, even if we magically summoned up college degrees for a tenth of all the working-age American men who don’t have them—by historical standards, a big boost in college-graduation rates—we’d scarcely change the existing concentration of income at the very top of the earnings distribution, where C.E.O.s & hedge-fund managers live.
Being more realistic about the role that college degrees play would help families & politicians make better choices. It could also help us appreciate the actual merits of a traditional broad-based education, often called a liberal-arts education, rather than trying to reduce everything to an economic cost-benefit analysis. “To be clear, the idea is not that there will be a big financial payoff to a liberal arts degree,” Cappelli writes. “It is that there is no guarantee of a payoff from very practical, work-based degrees either, yet that is all those degrees promise. For liberal arts, the claim is different and seems more accurate, that it will enrich your life and provide lessons that extend beyond any individual job. There are centuries of experience providing support for that notion.”
Monday, February 29, 2016
Students turning to campus food banks as tuition, living costs rise
Now, this article might be based merely on a poll, but it is still reporting on a hidden, but very serious, problem. Tuition keeps getting expensive & inaccessible every academic semester. Students' wages & their parents' incomes are not increasing accordingly. But the hype of getting an education is not only constantly there but becoming an ever-ringing alarm bell.
So, every parent & family wants their children to attend a good post-secondary institution. Good post-secondary institution also charge exorbitant tuition fees, which in part, is due to governments at all levels cutting education funding. That in turn increases tuition fees.
So, unless the parents have a garden of magic trees with leaves of hard cold cash, children will suffer in getting their education. This is especially true for families which don't have enough income & wealth in the first place. If parents don't / can't contribute to their children's education, then their kids' education is affected even worse. As I blogged last year, that some universities are building luxury dorms to cater to children of affluent families, & at the same time, charging exorbitant tuition fees to poverty-stricken students.
Even this food bank mentioned in this article is volunteer-run. Universities & governments still won't help students, who are in dire need to choose between basic food or studies, with enough support to help them focus on their studies than to worry about where their next meal is going to come from, if at all.
This is the terrible condition of poverty-stricken students in first-world countries; from US to Canada to UK. These countries are considered as welfare nations. These countries will charge high taxes but those taxes are paying government ministers' salaries than providing a meal to a hungry student. Then, that hungry student will most likely get even more burdened with debts to fill his stomach & study.
How can we expect a nation to be productive when it can't even provide its poor students with enough food to help them keep their focus on their studies? How can we expect a nation to produce brilliant leaders of tomorrow when a majority of its poor can't even get proper food to keep their brains properly functioning? How can we expect a nation to expect its youth to become the engine of growth & productivity when that young population received no help, whatsoever, when it needed it the most & now, after graduating, it is saddled with thousands upon thousands in student debt?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new campus food bank at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax is part of a troubling trend, says the Canadian Federation of Students.
Similar services have sprung up on campuses across Canada as tuition fees & living costs have risen along with student debt, national chairperson Bilan Arte said Tuesday.
“Student unions keep having to prioritize this issue because their members keep saying that they’re making these hard choices between tuition and their next meal. This is incredibly alarming for our organization.
“I think it really underscores for us the importance of talking about the inaccessibility of post-secondary education in Canada today.”
The federation, representing more than 500,000 members from 80 students’ unions, is calling on the federal & provincial governments to make higher learning more affordable.
Arte ... said the true extent of student poverty is largely unrecognized & under-reported.
“How many food banks opening on campus is it going to take before governments sort of realize that maybe there’s a problem?”
Financial aid officer Allen Wolfe of Saint Mary’s University said he helped set up the campus service after referring students to local food banks on a weekly basis. The plight of an international student who was going without meals convinced him to act.
“It wasn’t until a long interview with him that I realized he wasn’t eating,” Wolfe said in a telephone interview. “He was starving, basically, but still maintaining perfect grades.
“That’s really what stuck with me this year and what pushed me forward to make this happen.”
Wolfe stressed that, like many campus food banks, the Saint Mary’s service relies on volunteers & is not funded by the university.
“There’s no budget line for this. It’s going to be regularly maintained by food drives.”
Maximum student loan limits have not risen in the last 2 years as food, housing & other prices have gone up, he added.
Wolfe said he also sees many young people who never learned how to properly budget for life on their own.
While campus-specific statistics are not available, Arte referred to a national study released last fall by Food Banks Canada. It found that community food banks across the country support about 841,000 people a month, up 25% since the economic slide of 2008.
“We know that campuses are microcosms of the larger society,” Arte said. “We have generally heard and have seen our members report an increase in the usage of their food banks on campus.”
A new poll just released by CIBC (TSX:CM) found that 51% of college & university students turned to their parents last year for help after running out of cash.
The online survey conducted Aug. 13-17 among 1,001 Canadian parents who are Angus Reid Forum panellists suggested 48% of students from families with incomes higher than $125,000 asked for more money, compared to 52% from families earning less than $75,000.
So, every parent & family wants their children to attend a good post-secondary institution. Good post-secondary institution also charge exorbitant tuition fees, which in part, is due to governments at all levels cutting education funding. That in turn increases tuition fees.
So, unless the parents have a garden of magic trees with leaves of hard cold cash, children will suffer in getting their education. This is especially true for families which don't have enough income & wealth in the first place. If parents don't / can't contribute to their children's education, then their kids' education is affected even worse. As I blogged last year, that some universities are building luxury dorms to cater to children of affluent families, & at the same time, charging exorbitant tuition fees to poverty-stricken students.
Even this food bank mentioned in this article is volunteer-run. Universities & governments still won't help students, who are in dire need to choose between basic food or studies, with enough support to help them focus on their studies than to worry about where their next meal is going to come from, if at all.
This is the terrible condition of poverty-stricken students in first-world countries; from US to Canada to UK. These countries are considered as welfare nations. These countries will charge high taxes but those taxes are paying government ministers' salaries than providing a meal to a hungry student. Then, that hungry student will most likely get even more burdened with debts to fill his stomach & study.
How can we expect a nation to be productive when it can't even provide its poor students with enough food to help them keep their focus on their studies? How can we expect a nation to produce brilliant leaders of tomorrow when a majority of its poor can't even get proper food to keep their brains properly functioning? How can we expect a nation to expect its youth to become the engine of growth & productivity when that young population received no help, whatsoever, when it needed it the most & now, after graduating, it is saddled with thousands upon thousands in student debt?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new campus food bank at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax is part of a troubling trend, says the Canadian Federation of Students.
Similar services have sprung up on campuses across Canada as tuition fees & living costs have risen along with student debt, national chairperson Bilan Arte said Tuesday.
“Student unions keep having to prioritize this issue because their members keep saying that they’re making these hard choices between tuition and their next meal. This is incredibly alarming for our organization.
“I think it really underscores for us the importance of talking about the inaccessibility of post-secondary education in Canada today.”
The federation, representing more than 500,000 members from 80 students’ unions, is calling on the federal & provincial governments to make higher learning more affordable.
Arte ... said the true extent of student poverty is largely unrecognized & under-reported.
“How many food banks opening on campus is it going to take before governments sort of realize that maybe there’s a problem?”
Financial aid officer Allen Wolfe of Saint Mary’s University said he helped set up the campus service after referring students to local food banks on a weekly basis. The plight of an international student who was going without meals convinced him to act.
“It wasn’t until a long interview with him that I realized he wasn’t eating,” Wolfe said in a telephone interview. “He was starving, basically, but still maintaining perfect grades.
“That’s really what stuck with me this year and what pushed me forward to make this happen.”
Wolfe stressed that, like many campus food banks, the Saint Mary’s service relies on volunteers & is not funded by the university.
“There’s no budget line for this. It’s going to be regularly maintained by food drives.”
Maximum student loan limits have not risen in the last 2 years as food, housing & other prices have gone up, he added.
Wolfe said he also sees many young people who never learned how to properly budget for life on their own.
While campus-specific statistics are not available, Arte referred to a national study released last fall by Food Banks Canada. It found that community food banks across the country support about 841,000 people a month, up 25% since the economic slide of 2008.
“We know that campuses are microcosms of the larger society,” Arte said. “We have generally heard and have seen our members report an increase in the usage of their food banks on campus.”
A new poll just released by CIBC (TSX:CM) found that 51% of college & university students turned to their parents last year for help after running out of cash.
The online survey conducted Aug. 13-17 among 1,001 Canadian parents who are Angus Reid Forum panellists suggested 48% of students from families with incomes higher than $125,000 asked for more money, compared to 52% from families earning less than $75,000.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Growing student debt is entrenching unfairness for a whole generation
Although, this opinion piece is focused on the problem with post-secondary education in UK, & a little bit on US (for comparison purposes), I would say that's the condition of education, & consequently society, mostly everywhere in the world.
Everyone loves to talk about how education is important for everyone in today's society & how education is the key for future economic stability for the nations & financial independence for the individuals. BUT, what no one talks about is how education is keep becoming expensive & jobs are keep becoming dependent on personal & professional networks than mere education.
Education is definitely important & must be attained by everyone. But how can a poor student, & most students are from poor family backgrounds (thanks to the world economy), pay already-exorbitant & ever-increasing school fees? Except a few countries around the world (& you can probably count them on your fingers), most countries have / are cutting their education spending, & hence, education institutes are constantly increasing their fees, which in turn, reduce the chances for a poor student to ever break the cycle of poverty he/she is thrust into & become educated & financially independent.
The fees are increasing because of several factors:
1. Governments at all levels are cutting their education funding. Governments, however, are more than happier to keep increasing their military funding. So, the finite financial power a government has, is being diverted towards making it easier to kill a human than to educate a human.
2. Government officials are being controlled by rich & powerful elites of the country. These elites want a stratified society where masses of poor are at their behest to do their work while they enjoy their days sitting in their golden chairs.
3. Taking the second point further, those rich & powerful elites might have become so rich & powerful through a finance-based economy. For instance, Wall Street has made quite a few individuals rich & powerful in US. Now, those individuals want more & more people to take out loans & hence, get trapped in the continuing & unending cycle of debt. Since, the younger generation keeps being shown the dream that if you get more education, you will one day join those powerful elites, the student enrollment keeps increasing. More student = more student loans, which in turn, helps those rich elites become ever more richer & powerful.
4. Education institutes are becoming more a business than a place to share knowledge. Profit & loss are becoming the focus of the education institutes than increasing the level of humanity through education & hence, making a better society, at the national & global levels. In this quest of making more profits, professors are being given contract jobs with minimum-level wages, while students are being charged ever higher fees.
To make matters worse, & as the opinion piece also mentions, that the earning power of new generation also keeps getting worse & worse. So, the education costs is increasing, which require bigger & bigger loans, but the wages are not keeping up with those education costs either, so it takes longer & longer, decades in most cases, for new graduates to pay off those debts.
As the opinion piece further mentions, education is becoming more "what can I study which will get me more money" instead of "what can I study which will make me a better human". For instance, arts education is being derided for graduating out people who are becoming a drain on the country, since they are not considered useful in money-making professions, whereas, education in Information Technology, Medicine, Engineering, & Business for instance is emphasized because graduates of these faculties have a higher chance of making more money than arts graduates. That's, of course, is creating more graduates with silo mindsets, who are focused more on making money, in any way they can, instead of students who want to love learning their whole lives & want to pursue a more well-rounded education.
Job market is also becoming more network-based than education or even skills-based. Since, education institutes have become "degree-granting industries", they are graduating more & more people with degrees, regardless of whether the society needs those degrees or not. So, a country, & even the world, is ending up being flooded with people with degrees. Every other person is an engineer, an MBA, an accountant, a marketing expert, a communications master & whatnot. Since, there are a finite number of businesses & employers, hiring is being done more on the basis of personal & professional networks than pure merit of education & skills.
All of these factors are resulting in a society, on a national & international level, where more & more graduates are frustrated & depressed with increasing debts & decreasing incomes, an ever-increasing gap between rich & poor, more & more people with multiple degrees but either unemployed or less-than-ideal employment, & a society with siloed mindsets due to the unavailability, & unpopularity, of a rounded education than a quick money-making education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
In 2015, English universities are spending £800m on promoting access for disadvantaged students as the quid pro quo for increasing their fees to £9,000 – a patchwork quilt of scholarships, fee-waivers, induction & remedial courses & building links with communities & schools to appeal to students from poorer backgrounds. It seems to be working. Analysis by the recent final report of the Independent Commission on Fees (which I chaired) shows that over the past 5 years the proportion of students from disadvantaged homes has risen markedly.
... If 12,000 more students from poorer homes are enrolling at university than 5 years ago, that hardly compensates for the collapse in part-time student numbers, falling by 152,000 over the same period. The principal cause is fear of debt, a trend that will be accelerated by the ending of maintenance grants in the budget. While part-time numbers are holding up in Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales, which don’t charge £6,750 for part-time courses, they are plunging in England, which does. Part-time foundation degrees, certificates & diplomas of higher education are people’s second chance, especially for the over-25s, who represent four-fifths of the drop. The number of mature students doing full-time degrees is also falling. Together this represents one of the biggest setbacks to social mobility in modern times.
The notion that Britain’s students are simply shrugging off debts that by 2020 will be approaching £50,000 as universities index fees to inflation, bringing them near to £10,000, is far too optimistic. Today’s 16- to 18-year-olds are beginning to worry as much about debt as their older peers. A ComRes opinion survey commissioned by the Sutton Trust reports that 78% of young people were concerned as potential students about the cost of living, 68% by high tuition fees & 58% by having to repay student loans. They are right. The US is often quoted as the country whose system of student funding most cloesely corresponds to England’s, but because of generous scholarships in private universities & very low fees charged by many state universities, only 70% of US students graduate with debt, which in any case only averages £22,750. In Britain, all students graduate with debt almost twice the US level.
Already in the US there are grave concerns about the social implications. Couples are waiting longer before they marry; the birthrate is falling; home ownership among under-40s is plummeting; & the rate of small business formation by young people is decreasing. As loan default rates rise, the whole exercise threatens to become self-defeating.The consequences in England promise to be more pronounced. Property prices in relation to income are much higher & graduates shouldering student debt are in no position to save up the huge deposit needed to buy a home. Moreover, the fee regime is interacting with a collapse in young people’s real wages – down more than 10% since 2008.
Britain is in the process of creating the most stratified, least socially mobile, cruelly unfair society in
its treatment of the young in the advanced world. The over-50s, rejoicing in the untaxed capital gains they enjoy from buying property a generation ago, will help their own kids, but are not asked to help anyone else’s. As in the US, family formation, the birthrate, home ownership & small business startups are all beginning to be affected & parents will work far into old age to try to help their children. All this to ensure that the allegedly malevolent state is shrunk.
Worse, the debt is structured so that the compound interest rate effect of not paying it off early makes it even more onerous, an effect vastly more likely to hit students from disadvantaged homes. Yes, more are getting to university but, with a few exceptions, not the top ones whose degrees are most valued by employers. Students from advantaged neighbourhoods are 10 times more likely to go to a Russell Group university than those from disadvantaged neighbourhoods. So not only do students from poorer homes have parents not rich enough to be able to help them, their earning power will be less. George Osborne’s legacy, ranging from relaxing inheritance tax to allowing parents to leave their pension pot to their kids & eliminating maintenance grants, will be a society in which the rich are better able to help their indebted children, while the disadvantaged will be left as bottom-tier citizens, renting homes while engaged in a lifelong struggle to repay their student debt. Three-quarters will be paying off loans in their 50s.
And as in the US, default rates are rising. The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills now thinks that 45% of the loans for full-time students will never be repaid, along with 65% of loans to part-time students; the taxpayer will pick up the bill. Indeed, the default rate is now so high that the system is nearly as costly as the low-fee regime it replaced. Meanwhile, universities are finding that more students want to do degrees more likely to deliver high salaries; little by little, they are being transformed from centres of rounded academic teaching & research excellence across the gamut of subjects to high-class employment agencies.
Is any of this what we want as a society? Is it so important that the state consumes only 35.5% of GDP rather than, say, 37% that we are prepared to sacrifice social mobility, entrench class, lower home ownership, enslave a generation to debt & diminish the idea of the university? At the very least, average debt levels should be no higher than those in the US, with many more concessions for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This is too big a cause to be marginalised as that of the “left”. It is everyone’s – & time mainstream politicians spoke up.
Will Hutton is principal of Hertford College, Oxford
Everyone loves to talk about how education is important for everyone in today's society & how education is the key for future economic stability for the nations & financial independence for the individuals. BUT, what no one talks about is how education is keep becoming expensive & jobs are keep becoming dependent on personal & professional networks than mere education.
Education is definitely important & must be attained by everyone. But how can a poor student, & most students are from poor family backgrounds (thanks to the world economy), pay already-exorbitant & ever-increasing school fees? Except a few countries around the world (& you can probably count them on your fingers), most countries have / are cutting their education spending, & hence, education institutes are constantly increasing their fees, which in turn, reduce the chances for a poor student to ever break the cycle of poverty he/she is thrust into & become educated & financially independent.
The fees are increasing because of several factors:
1. Governments at all levels are cutting their education funding. Governments, however, are more than happier to keep increasing their military funding. So, the finite financial power a government has, is being diverted towards making it easier to kill a human than to educate a human.
2. Government officials are being controlled by rich & powerful elites of the country. These elites want a stratified society where masses of poor are at their behest to do their work while they enjoy their days sitting in their golden chairs.
3. Taking the second point further, those rich & powerful elites might have become so rich & powerful through a finance-based economy. For instance, Wall Street has made quite a few individuals rich & powerful in US. Now, those individuals want more & more people to take out loans & hence, get trapped in the continuing & unending cycle of debt. Since, the younger generation keeps being shown the dream that if you get more education, you will one day join those powerful elites, the student enrollment keeps increasing. More student = more student loans, which in turn, helps those rich elites become ever more richer & powerful.
4. Education institutes are becoming more a business than a place to share knowledge. Profit & loss are becoming the focus of the education institutes than increasing the level of humanity through education & hence, making a better society, at the national & global levels. In this quest of making more profits, professors are being given contract jobs with minimum-level wages, while students are being charged ever higher fees.
To make matters worse, & as the opinion piece also mentions, that the earning power of new generation also keeps getting worse & worse. So, the education costs is increasing, which require bigger & bigger loans, but the wages are not keeping up with those education costs either, so it takes longer & longer, decades in most cases, for new graduates to pay off those debts.
As the opinion piece further mentions, education is becoming more "what can I study which will get me more money" instead of "what can I study which will make me a better human". For instance, arts education is being derided for graduating out people who are becoming a drain on the country, since they are not considered useful in money-making professions, whereas, education in Information Technology, Medicine, Engineering, & Business for instance is emphasized because graduates of these faculties have a higher chance of making more money than arts graduates. That's, of course, is creating more graduates with silo mindsets, who are focused more on making money, in any way they can, instead of students who want to love learning their whole lives & want to pursue a more well-rounded education.
Job market is also becoming more network-based than education or even skills-based. Since, education institutes have become "degree-granting industries", they are graduating more & more people with degrees, regardless of whether the society needs those degrees or not. So, a country, & even the world, is ending up being flooded with people with degrees. Every other person is an engineer, an MBA, an accountant, a marketing expert, a communications master & whatnot. Since, there are a finite number of businesses & employers, hiring is being done more on the basis of personal & professional networks than pure merit of education & skills.
All of these factors are resulting in a society, on a national & international level, where more & more graduates are frustrated & depressed with increasing debts & decreasing incomes, an ever-increasing gap between rich & poor, more & more people with multiple degrees but either unemployed or less-than-ideal employment, & a society with siloed mindsets due to the unavailability, & unpopularity, of a rounded education than a quick money-making education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, English universities are spending £800m on promoting access for disadvantaged students as the quid pro quo for increasing their fees to £9,000 – a patchwork quilt of scholarships, fee-waivers, induction & remedial courses & building links with communities & schools to appeal to students from poorer backgrounds. It seems to be working. Analysis by the recent final report of the Independent Commission on Fees (which I chaired) shows that over the past 5 years the proportion of students from disadvantaged homes has risen markedly.
... If 12,000 more students from poorer homes are enrolling at university than 5 years ago, that hardly compensates for the collapse in part-time student numbers, falling by 152,000 over the same period. The principal cause is fear of debt, a trend that will be accelerated by the ending of maintenance grants in the budget. While part-time numbers are holding up in Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales, which don’t charge £6,750 for part-time courses, they are plunging in England, which does. Part-time foundation degrees, certificates & diplomas of higher education are people’s second chance, especially for the over-25s, who represent four-fifths of the drop. The number of mature students doing full-time degrees is also falling. Together this represents one of the biggest setbacks to social mobility in modern times.
The notion that Britain’s students are simply shrugging off debts that by 2020 will be approaching £50,000 as universities index fees to inflation, bringing them near to £10,000, is far too optimistic. Today’s 16- to 18-year-olds are beginning to worry as much about debt as their older peers. A ComRes opinion survey commissioned by the Sutton Trust reports that 78% of young people were concerned as potential students about the cost of living, 68% by high tuition fees & 58% by having to repay student loans. They are right. The US is often quoted as the country whose system of student funding most cloesely corresponds to England’s, but because of generous scholarships in private universities & very low fees charged by many state universities, only 70% of US students graduate with debt, which in any case only averages £22,750. In Britain, all students graduate with debt almost twice the US level.
Already in the US there are grave concerns about the social implications. Couples are waiting longer before they marry; the birthrate is falling; home ownership among under-40s is plummeting; & the rate of small business formation by young people is decreasing. As loan default rates rise, the whole exercise threatens to become self-defeating.The consequences in England promise to be more pronounced. Property prices in relation to income are much higher & graduates shouldering student debt are in no position to save up the huge deposit needed to buy a home. Moreover, the fee regime is interacting with a collapse in young people’s real wages – down more than 10% since 2008.
Britain is in the process of creating the most stratified, least socially mobile, cruelly unfair society in
its treatment of the young in the advanced world. The over-50s, rejoicing in the untaxed capital gains they enjoy from buying property a generation ago, will help their own kids, but are not asked to help anyone else’s. As in the US, family formation, the birthrate, home ownership & small business startups are all beginning to be affected & parents will work far into old age to try to help their children. All this to ensure that the allegedly malevolent state is shrunk.
Worse, the debt is structured so that the compound interest rate effect of not paying it off early makes it even more onerous, an effect vastly more likely to hit students from disadvantaged homes. Yes, more are getting to university but, with a few exceptions, not the top ones whose degrees are most valued by employers. Students from advantaged neighbourhoods are 10 times more likely to go to a Russell Group university than those from disadvantaged neighbourhoods. So not only do students from poorer homes have parents not rich enough to be able to help them, their earning power will be less. George Osborne’s legacy, ranging from relaxing inheritance tax to allowing parents to leave their pension pot to their kids & eliminating maintenance grants, will be a society in which the rich are better able to help their indebted children, while the disadvantaged will be left as bottom-tier citizens, renting homes while engaged in a lifelong struggle to repay their student debt. Three-quarters will be paying off loans in their 50s.
And as in the US, default rates are rising. The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills now thinks that 45% of the loans for full-time students will never be repaid, along with 65% of loans to part-time students; the taxpayer will pick up the bill. Indeed, the default rate is now so high that the system is nearly as costly as the low-fee regime it replaced. Meanwhile, universities are finding that more students want to do degrees more likely to deliver high salaries; little by little, they are being transformed from centres of rounded academic teaching & research excellence across the gamut of subjects to high-class employment agencies.
Is any of this what we want as a society? Is it so important that the state consumes only 35.5% of GDP rather than, say, 37% that we are prepared to sacrifice social mobility, entrench class, lower home ownership, enslave a generation to debt & diminish the idea of the university? At the very least, average debt levels should be no higher than those in the US, with many more concessions for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This is too big a cause to be marginalised as that of the “left”. It is everyone’s – & time mainstream politicians spoke up.
Will Hutton is principal of Hertford College, Oxford
Thursday, November 19, 2015
I am an adjunct professor who teaches 5 classes. I earn less than a pet-sitter
Not surprised at reading this article. But I am indeed sad at what is happening to our world. The world is unfair but it is just getting to an absurdly low point. Education is becoming meaningless in this modern world. Educated people who are without any influential networks are being used as mere slaves; jobs with low pay & without much benefits, if any.
People who are making six-figures or even millions are doing it by either exploiting others or themselves. All of the rich people in the modern world have become rich by trampling the basic human dignity, for example, by paying the federally-mandated minimum wages, which are themselves quite low. Some others are making money by exploiting narcissistic trends in social media or taking off their clothes in front of the camera. For example, some gamers, fashion & media vbloggers, Miley Cyrus, the Kardashian clan, most, if not all, rappers & hip hop artists, & of course, even the porn stars.
People who are working hard to teach & build the next generation are being treated like mere pawns. What message is being shown to the young minds of next generation? That it is better to go in sales (where one doesn't really need a relevant education & just be good in hustling or lying with a straight face), start making own videos for social media on completely inane topics, start twerking & dancing in front of millions, & of course, porn industry is another great option, too.
What kind of society are we expecting when the teacher of the next generation is being paid less than the cashier or grocery bagger at your local grocery store? After all, a simple cost-benefit analysis would lay the facts bare that just graduating secondary school is far better, since it's free (at least in North America, Europe, & some Asian countries) & that young kid won't even have to waste time, money (thousands of $$$ in most cases) in university, & his/her effort, to receive minimum wages, or perhaps, even less.
Frankly, why the world keeps shouting that education is important for everyone. It is indeed important, when the educated person is treated the way he/she deserves to be treated. It is indeed important in a meritocracy. But that's not the world we are living in right now. Grads are unemployed & burdened with student loans. Whereas, people who didn't go to university, but are good in selling (whatever they are selling) are swimming in cash.
Then, how can we expect this modern world to be any better than the world of yore? Then, how can we expect any kind of fairness in this world when the people with whom we are dealing got where they are by "selling" themselves, their morals, & their ethics?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like most university teachers today, I am a low-paid contract worker. Now & then, a friend will ask: “Have you tried dog-walking on the side?” I have. Pet care, I can reveal, takes massive attention, energy & driving time. I’m friends with a full-time, professionally employed pet-sitter who’s done it for years, never topping $26,000 annually & never receiving health or other benefits.
The reason I field such questions is that, as an adjunct professor, whether teaching undergraduate or law-school courses, I make much less than a pet-sitter earns. This year I’m teaching five classes (15 credit hours, roughly comparable to the teaching loads of some tenure-track law or business school instructors). At $3,000 per course, I’ll pull in $15,000 for the year. I work year-round, 20 to 30 hours weekly – teaching, developing courses & drafting syllabi, offering academic advice, recommendation letters & course extensions for students who need them. ...
I receive no benefits, no office, no phone or stipend for the basic communication demands of teaching. I keep constant tabs on the media I use in my classes; if I exhaust my own 10GB monthly data plan early, I lose vital time for online discussions with my students. This, although the university requires my students to engage in discussions about legal issues & ethics six days a week, & I must guide as well as grade these discussions.
Three of my Philadelphia-area friends are adjuncts with doctorate degrees. One keeps moving to other states for temporary teaching posts. The others teach at multiple sites to keep afloat financially – one at no less than seven colleges & universities.
Having heard all my life about solid “government job” benefits, I figured I might have more stability, & still be able to handle teaching, if I worked for the Post Office. I started carrying mail in early January. As a City Carrier Assistant, I earned less pay than regular postal carriers do, though I did more than “assist”: my job was to handle absentee carriers’ routes. I had no medical insurance, no sick leave allowance & had to agree to work as much as managers deemed necessary for 360 consecutive days (whereupon I could sign up for a second 360-day contract, with no promise that it would bring me any closer to a permanent job offer). I worked on Sundays too, under the US Postal Service’s contract with Amazon.com. With human flaws – I fell on ice more than once – I was no match for the drones Amazon intends to deploy. After 2 months on the job, which was long enough to develop a lifetime fear of Rottweilers, I was behind in my university work. I turned in my cap.
In late March, I started a retail job. It offers real days off, & I expect to be eligible for health & dental benefits soon.
Last week, a friend came in to shop, saw me, & exclaimed, loud enough for all to hear: “What are you doing here?” Friends who know I hold two law degrees & teach at a university can’t fathom that my teaching doesn’t cover rent. Some writers have discussed adjuncts waiting tables or bagging groceries alongside their students as though it’s the ultimate degradation. I see things differently. I’m trained by the people who deliver parcels, serve meals & bag groceries & who might, any day, apply to take my courses. I am their equal, & I know it at a level most established faculty members do not.
Faculty members do not even interact with each other as equals. Most adjuncts aren’t included in regular faculty meetings, let alone conferences where ideas are exchanged & explored. A concept called the inclusive fees campaign seeks to make conferences affordable for adjuncts. (It focuses on PhDs, but could encompass teachers whose positions require law degrees or other alternative qualifications.) “Inclusivity” for a systematically exploited group is only a patch. But it’s good to see established professors challenged to acknowledge contingent workers, who now comprise the preponderance of the faculty community. Yes, of the 1.2 million instructional staff appointments in US higher education, 76% – more than 900,000 – are now contingent.
We are working for institutions that claim to open doors to career opportunities even as they etch contingency into their hiring practices. The significance of the inclusive fees campaign lies in its implicit question: how will the schools hear our voices over the silence of the tenured?
Even more daunting than the dearth of dollars is the fragmentation of the adjunct’s time. Recently, an editor at the University of Oregon School of Law asked if I’d be a conference panelist. Can I travel, yet still clock enough hours at my second job to stay above the threshold for health insurance?
Every day I live two people’s lives, & it’s fatiguing. Every day I need more time with students while being pulled away from them.
The best that could come of the adjunct crisis is a teaching community broadly committed to the civility & inclusivity we’ve been missing. This could lead to a new kind of education, based not on ranking, not on status, but on genuine guidance for living with decency & respect on this planet.
A conference on this is well overdue – & I don’t want to miss it while watching the time clock.
People who are making six-figures or even millions are doing it by either exploiting others or themselves. All of the rich people in the modern world have become rich by trampling the basic human dignity, for example, by paying the federally-mandated minimum wages, which are themselves quite low. Some others are making money by exploiting narcissistic trends in social media or taking off their clothes in front of the camera. For example, some gamers, fashion & media vbloggers, Miley Cyrus, the Kardashian clan, most, if not all, rappers & hip hop artists, & of course, even the porn stars.
People who are working hard to teach & build the next generation are being treated like mere pawns. What message is being shown to the young minds of next generation? That it is better to go in sales (where one doesn't really need a relevant education & just be good in hustling or lying with a straight face), start making own videos for social media on completely inane topics, start twerking & dancing in front of millions, & of course, porn industry is another great option, too.
What kind of society are we expecting when the teacher of the next generation is being paid less than the cashier or grocery bagger at your local grocery store? After all, a simple cost-benefit analysis would lay the facts bare that just graduating secondary school is far better, since it's free (at least in North America, Europe, & some Asian countries) & that young kid won't even have to waste time, money (thousands of $$$ in most cases) in university, & his/her effort, to receive minimum wages, or perhaps, even less.
Frankly, why the world keeps shouting that education is important for everyone. It is indeed important, when the educated person is treated the way he/she deserves to be treated. It is indeed important in a meritocracy. But that's not the world we are living in right now. Grads are unemployed & burdened with student loans. Whereas, people who didn't go to university, but are good in selling (whatever they are selling) are swimming in cash.
Then, how can we expect this modern world to be any better than the world of yore? Then, how can we expect any kind of fairness in this world when the people with whom we are dealing got where they are by "selling" themselves, their morals, & their ethics?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like most university teachers today, I am a low-paid contract worker. Now & then, a friend will ask: “Have you tried dog-walking on the side?” I have. Pet care, I can reveal, takes massive attention, energy & driving time. I’m friends with a full-time, professionally employed pet-sitter who’s done it for years, never topping $26,000 annually & never receiving health or other benefits.
The reason I field such questions is that, as an adjunct professor, whether teaching undergraduate or law-school courses, I make much less than a pet-sitter earns. This year I’m teaching five classes (15 credit hours, roughly comparable to the teaching loads of some tenure-track law or business school instructors). At $3,000 per course, I’ll pull in $15,000 for the year. I work year-round, 20 to 30 hours weekly – teaching, developing courses & drafting syllabi, offering academic advice, recommendation letters & course extensions for students who need them. ...
I receive no benefits, no office, no phone or stipend for the basic communication demands of teaching. I keep constant tabs on the media I use in my classes; if I exhaust my own 10GB monthly data plan early, I lose vital time for online discussions with my students. This, although the university requires my students to engage in discussions about legal issues & ethics six days a week, & I must guide as well as grade these discussions.
Three of my Philadelphia-area friends are adjuncts with doctorate degrees. One keeps moving to other states for temporary teaching posts. The others teach at multiple sites to keep afloat financially – one at no less than seven colleges & universities.
Having heard all my life about solid “government job” benefits, I figured I might have more stability, & still be able to handle teaching, if I worked for the Post Office. I started carrying mail in early January. As a City Carrier Assistant, I earned less pay than regular postal carriers do, though I did more than “assist”: my job was to handle absentee carriers’ routes. I had no medical insurance, no sick leave allowance & had to agree to work as much as managers deemed necessary for 360 consecutive days (whereupon I could sign up for a second 360-day contract, with no promise that it would bring me any closer to a permanent job offer). I worked on Sundays too, under the US Postal Service’s contract with Amazon.com. With human flaws – I fell on ice more than once – I was no match for the drones Amazon intends to deploy. After 2 months on the job, which was long enough to develop a lifetime fear of Rottweilers, I was behind in my university work. I turned in my cap.
In late March, I started a retail job. It offers real days off, & I expect to be eligible for health & dental benefits soon.
Last week, a friend came in to shop, saw me, & exclaimed, loud enough for all to hear: “What are you doing here?” Friends who know I hold two law degrees & teach at a university can’t fathom that my teaching doesn’t cover rent. Some writers have discussed adjuncts waiting tables or bagging groceries alongside their students as though it’s the ultimate degradation. I see things differently. I’m trained by the people who deliver parcels, serve meals & bag groceries & who might, any day, apply to take my courses. I am their equal, & I know it at a level most established faculty members do not.
Faculty members do not even interact with each other as equals. Most adjuncts aren’t included in regular faculty meetings, let alone conferences where ideas are exchanged & explored. A concept called the inclusive fees campaign seeks to make conferences affordable for adjuncts. (It focuses on PhDs, but could encompass teachers whose positions require law degrees or other alternative qualifications.) “Inclusivity” for a systematically exploited group is only a patch. But it’s good to see established professors challenged to acknowledge contingent workers, who now comprise the preponderance of the faculty community. Yes, of the 1.2 million instructional staff appointments in US higher education, 76% – more than 900,000 – are now contingent.
We are working for institutions that claim to open doors to career opportunities even as they etch contingency into their hiring practices. The significance of the inclusive fees campaign lies in its implicit question: how will the schools hear our voices over the silence of the tenured?
Even more daunting than the dearth of dollars is the fragmentation of the adjunct’s time. Recently, an editor at the University of Oregon School of Law asked if I’d be a conference panelist. Can I travel, yet still clock enough hours at my second job to stay above the threshold for health insurance?
Every day I live two people’s lives, & it’s fatiguing. Every day I need more time with students while being pulled away from them.
The best that could come of the adjunct crisis is a teaching community broadly committed to the civility & inclusivity we’ve been missing. This could lead to a new kind of education, based not on ranking, not on status, but on genuine guidance for living with decency & respect on this planet.
A conference on this is well overdue – & I don’t want to miss it while watching the time clock.
Monday, November 16, 2015
"Education Cuts" by David Fitzsimmons
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Black teachers still face racism on the job in Ontario
I used to be surprised when people used to get surprised at the news that there's racism in Canada; the country which thinks it is better than US in regards to such form of discrimination & hatred.
But I don't get surprised at them, because I already know those people, who are the majority of the population, are living under a rock, when it comes to their social knowledge. They may know a lot about their profession, politics, sports etc., but when it comes to know what's going on in their vicinity which is affecting adversely to their fellow human beings, they are completely clueless.
I know there's racism in Canada because I suffer it myself. I know there's racism in Canada because I hear from other people in my community who suffer from it. But most people in our supposedly "diverse" society live in so insularly that they are completely oblivious to these daily facts of life.
Recent riots & violence in US in regards to racism didn't come out of nowhere, but they were the result of years & decades of racism by the American "white" majority. Since, African-Americans are that many more in population in US than any other race, racism affects them with that much force.
In Canada, the adverse effects of racism are few but intense. Reason being that a large majority of some 35 million of Canadians are of one race, & other races make a small portion of the whole population. On top of that, many stories of racism never surface, so we never come to hear the full extent of racism in our society.
As interim president of ONABSE says in the article below that "racism is still deeply ingrained in society."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many black teachers across Ontario still face racism on the job, according to a new study of educators, half of whom said they believe being black has hurt their chance of promotion. Some told of hearing the ‘N’ word used in the staff room & being mistaken for a trespasser.
“I had a supply teacher tell me I am not allowed to park my car in staff parking,” said one of the 148 black educators across 12 Ontario school boards surveyed for a report ... . “The ‘N’ word was used in casual conversation in our staff room,” said another. “I was introduced as ‘home girl’ to a student teacher.”
The 63-page report, The Voices of Ontario Black Educators, prepared for the Ontario Alliance of Black School Educators (ONABSE), calls for Ontario to enact tough employment equity legislation, provide training against anti-black bias, set targets for promoting teachers of colour & cluster black teachers in particular in schools where there are high numbers of black students.
“We’re disappointed, but not surprised at the findings — racism is still deeply ingrained in society,” said Warren Salmon, interim president of ONABSE, which commissioned the report because of concerns expressed by its members.
Of the black teachers, principals & vice-principals surveyed, one-third said they believe they have been passed over for advancement because they are black. Some 27% said racial discrimination by colleagues affects their day-to-day work life & 51% said they believe anti-black bias at their school board affects who gets promoted.
Equity consultant Tana Turner of Turner Consultants conducted the survey, & called for school boards to “set equity goals & timetables — not just have an employment equity office which merely measures the numbers of employees …"
Toronto vice-principal Darlene Jones said she has not experienced racism either as a teacher or as vice-principal of Beverley Heights Middle School — “not at all; but I’m not alarmed that it exists. It’s our world; you just have to hope that by changing mindsets, things will change.”
...
The report included numerous anecdotes of “micro-aggressions … the everyday slights, insults & indignities” that imply black teachers don’t belong:
• One was “asked by a principal if I would ever consider straightening my hair.”
• Another was “told I should steer away from too much black history in the class as black history is not important when no black students are present.”
• On arriving at a new job assignment, “colleagues asked if I am a new caretaker.”
• “A colleague was shocked that I was raised by both parents — & expressed it in the staff room.”
Turner noted that in 2011, 26% of Ontarians were “racialized” (visible minorities) — a figure that soars to 72% in Markham, 66% in Brampton, 54% in Mississauga & 49% in Toronto. However, she said the percentage of teachers of colour lags behind the population.
Some 31% of the Toronto District School Board’s staff self-identified as visible minorities in 2012. At the University of Toronto’s faculty of education, 46% of current students self-identified as being part of a visible minority.
The ONABSE report calls for more rigorous tracking of the diversity of teachers in Ontario schools.
But I don't get surprised at them, because I already know those people, who are the majority of the population, are living under a rock, when it comes to their social knowledge. They may know a lot about their profession, politics, sports etc., but when it comes to know what's going on in their vicinity which is affecting adversely to their fellow human beings, they are completely clueless.
I know there's racism in Canada because I suffer it myself. I know there's racism in Canada because I hear from other people in my community who suffer from it. But most people in our supposedly "diverse" society live in so insularly that they are completely oblivious to these daily facts of life.
Recent riots & violence in US in regards to racism didn't come out of nowhere, but they were the result of years & decades of racism by the American "white" majority. Since, African-Americans are that many more in population in US than any other race, racism affects them with that much force.
In Canada, the adverse effects of racism are few but intense. Reason being that a large majority of some 35 million of Canadians are of one race, & other races make a small portion of the whole population. On top of that, many stories of racism never surface, so we never come to hear the full extent of racism in our society.
As interim president of ONABSE says in the article below that "racism is still deeply ingrained in society."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many black teachers across Ontario still face racism on the job, according to a new study of educators, half of whom said they believe being black has hurt their chance of promotion. Some told of hearing the ‘N’ word used in the staff room & being mistaken for a trespasser.
“I had a supply teacher tell me I am not allowed to park my car in staff parking,” said one of the 148 black educators across 12 Ontario school boards surveyed for a report ... . “The ‘N’ word was used in casual conversation in our staff room,” said another. “I was introduced as ‘home girl’ to a student teacher.”
The 63-page report, The Voices of Ontario Black Educators, prepared for the Ontario Alliance of Black School Educators (ONABSE), calls for Ontario to enact tough employment equity legislation, provide training against anti-black bias, set targets for promoting teachers of colour & cluster black teachers in particular in schools where there are high numbers of black students.
“We’re disappointed, but not surprised at the findings — racism is still deeply ingrained in society,” said Warren Salmon, interim president of ONABSE, which commissioned the report because of concerns expressed by its members.
Of the black teachers, principals & vice-principals surveyed, one-third said they believe they have been passed over for advancement because they are black. Some 27% said racial discrimination by colleagues affects their day-to-day work life & 51% said they believe anti-black bias at their school board affects who gets promoted.
Equity consultant Tana Turner of Turner Consultants conducted the survey, & called for school boards to “set equity goals & timetables — not just have an employment equity office which merely measures the numbers of employees …"
Toronto vice-principal Darlene Jones said she has not experienced racism either as a teacher or as vice-principal of Beverley Heights Middle School — “not at all; but I’m not alarmed that it exists. It’s our world; you just have to hope that by changing mindsets, things will change.”
...
The report included numerous anecdotes of “micro-aggressions … the everyday slights, insults & indignities” that imply black teachers don’t belong:
• One was “asked by a principal if I would ever consider straightening my hair.”
• Another was “told I should steer away from too much black history in the class as black history is not important when no black students are present.”
• On arriving at a new job assignment, “colleagues asked if I am a new caretaker.”
• “A colleague was shocked that I was raised by both parents — & expressed it in the staff room.”
Turner noted that in 2011, 26% of Ontarians were “racialized” (visible minorities) — a figure that soars to 72% in Markham, 66% in Brampton, 54% in Mississauga & 49% in Toronto. However, she said the percentage of teachers of colour lags behind the population.
Some 31% of the Toronto District School Board’s staff self-identified as visible minorities in 2012. At the University of Toronto’s faculty of education, 46% of current students self-identified as being part of a visible minority.
The ONABSE report calls for more rigorous tracking of the diversity of teachers in Ontario schools.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Paranoia (movie quote 1)
Loved this line from the movie, Paranoia. By the way, Picasso actually didn't start this expression. But, regardless of who started this, this movie line exemplifies today's "innovation". Everyone in today's corporate & tech world loves talking about "innovation" but nobody is coming up with anything new or original. Heck, even the late Steve Jobs reiterated this Picasso line multiple times, & he is considered one of the greatest innovators of our modern tech age.
So, then the question arises: why our education system is so much against plagiarism when the corporate world, around the world, has its hands & heads deep in plagiarising someone else's idea?
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
How a corporate cult captures & destroys our best graduates
Although, this opinion piece by George Monbiot is good, & I would love to agree with it completely but it has a few major flaws.
Yes, students are one of the most idealistic people of any nation. They see the problem from an innocent point of view &, without any conflicts of interests or any politics, they try to find the best resolution to the problem. But with the same vein, they try to resolve every problem in a very straight-forward way, without thinking how the systems are structured or controlled or influenced. Merely protesting against the government on the streets won't help much if your demographics is not influential enough in the hallowed halls of the political powerhouses. For instance, we can see what did Egyptian youths & students achieve after protesting for weeks on end. Or students protesting against rising tuition fees around the world have not been able to convince post-secondary institutions to lower tuition fees.
So, at the same time, it is very true that students want to see the world develop in the noblest of forms; without any discriminations & prejudices. But at the same time, they also want to achieve success in their careers & life. They all want to climb high in the corporate world based on their merits & hard work. They all want to work for large, international, world-renowned companies.
The primary reason for this is how the labour market works. If these graduates get in a large, international, world-renowned company at the beginning of their careers, they can build their careers from that point, onwards & upwards. Other companies will look at their resumes & CVs & will be immediately impressed with their work experience, which they achieved at the large company. Those graduates may even build strong & influential networks by working in large multinational companies. For example, a graduate working in McKinsey or Bain or Boston Consulting Group or Deloitte or KPMG or General Electric or Phillips or Honda or Toyota or Google or Facebook etc will be able to transfer between different companies, in the same industry or even in different industries, very easily, due to how his/her work experiences will be looked upon by his future employers. A management consultant from McKinsey gets the doors flung open for him/her at other management consulting firms or even at non-consulting firms, like Google or General Electric.
Besides, the work experiences being favourably looked upon & networks being built, the salaries at these firms are good, too. But, I will not discuss the finance part of the argument, since, not every graduate chases the biggest pay packet. For many, salary comes second to experience.
Working for non-profits may elate a graduate for a short while, but, unless, they are willing to spend their whole life in the same company or stay within the non-profit sector, their experiences will most likely be considered not as important as a graduate's who has worked in a major consultancy firm. Is it unfair? Definitely. Should this be changed? Definitely. But who is willing to change it? There are not enough principals of the consultancy firms in this world who will look at a resume or CV of a person working at a non-profit agency & be immediately impressed.
Heck, even in personal lives, telling someone that one is working at such & such multinational consultancy firm or tech firm or other international company not only seem impressive but helps a lot in other ways. For instance, in Asian, South Asian, South American, & African societies, the measure of success of one's life is how big & well-known the employer of that person is. It doesn't even matter if that particular person is a janitor in that company. Parents & family members proudly boast that their family member is an employee of such a well-known international company. They don't care if that company is making weapons of mass destruction or destroying the environment or even killing the very soul of the society.
So, I agree with the argument that smart students should not be courted by large firms right before their graduations; when they may have not seen the world enough to make the right decision to choose the right career path for themselves. I also agree with the argument that students who want to work in such places where they can achieve their ideals, whatever they might be. But I disagree with the point that universities are failing in their duty of care by letting their graduates go for work for major "soulless" companies. Regardless of how much or how little universities market these companies to their intelligent students, those students will chase the large multinational companies because they know they will be able to travel the world, receive large pay packets, & most important of all, gain the work experience which will propel their careers in the stratosphere (assuming they don't screw up somewhere to derail their careers).
Everyone wants to go for the highest purposes of humankind but when push comes to shove, those noble ideas & meanings are pushed aside. It's not the fault of the universities or the companies or the young graduates, but the structure of the whole labour market is to blame. It rewards networks, not merits. It rewards experience gained at a multinational company, not the experience gained at a non-profit agency. It casts aside those who want to pursue highest purposes of humankind for the ones who are selfishly chasing money & careers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To seek enlightenment, intellectual or spiritual; to do good; to love & be loved; to create & to teach: these are the highest purposes of humankind. If there is meaning in life, it lies here.
Those who graduate from the leading universities have more opportunity than most to find such purpose. So why do so many end up in pointless & destructive jobs? Finance, management consultancy, advertising, public relations, lobbying: these & other useless occupations consume thousands of the brightest students. To take such jobs at graduation ... is to amputate life close to its base.
I watched it happen to my peers. People who had spent the preceding years laying out exultant visions of a better world, of the grand creative projects they planned, of adventure & discovery, were suddenly sucked into the mouths of corporations dangling money like angler fish.
At first they said they would do it for a year or two, “until I pay off my debts”. Soon afterwards they added: “and my mortgage”. Then it became, “I just want to make enough not to worry any more”. A few years later, “I’m doing it for my family”. Now, in middle age, they reply, “What, that? That was just a student fantasy.”
Why did they not escape, when they perceived that they were being dragged away from their dreams? I have come to see the obscene hours some new recruits must work – sometimes 15 or 16 a day – as a form of reorientation, of brainwashing. You are deprived of the time, sleep & energy you need to see past the place into which you have been plunged. You lose your bearings, your attachments to the world you inhabited before, & become immersed in the culture that surrounds you. Two years of this & many are lost for life.
Employment by the City has declined since the financial crash. Among the universities I surveyed with the excellent researcher John Sheil, the proportion of graduates taking jobs in finance & management consultancy ranges from 5% at Edinburgh to 13% at Oxford, 16% at Cambridge, 28% at the London School of Economics & 60% at the London Business School. But to judge by the number of applications & the rigour of the selection process, these businesses still harvest many of the smartest graduates.
Recruitment begins with lovebombing of the kind that cults use. They sponsor sports teams & debating societies, throw parties, offer meals & drinks, send handwritten letters, use student ambassadors to offer friendship & support. They persuade undergraduates that even if they don’t see themselves as consultants or bankers (few do), these jobs are stepping stones to the careers they really want. They make the initial application easy, & respond immediately & enthusiastically to signs of interest. They offer security & recognition when people are most uncertain & fearful about their future. And there’s the flash of the king’s shilling: the paid internships, the golden hellos, the promise of stupendous salaries within a couple of years. Entrapment is a refined science.
We have but one life. However much money we make, we cannot buy it back. As far as self-direction, autonomy & social utility are concerned, many of those who enter these industries & never re-emerge might as well have locked themselves in a cell at graduation. They lost it all with one false step, taken at a unique moment of freedom.
John Sheil & I sent questions to 8 of the universities with the highest average graduate salaries: Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, the LSE, the London Business School, Warwick, Sheffield & Edinburgh. We asked whether they seek to counter these lavish recruitment drives & defend students from the love blitz. With one remarkable exception, their responses ranged from feeble to dismal. Most offered no evidence of any prior interest in these questions. Where we expected deep deliberation to have taken place, we found instead an intellectual vacuum.
They cited their duty of impartiality, which, they believe, prevents them from seeking to influence students’ choices, & explained that there were plenty of other careers on offer. But they appear to have confused impartiality with passivity. Passivity in the face of unequal forces is anything but impartial. Impartiality demands an active attempt to create balance, to resist power, to tell the dark side of the celestial tale being pummelled into the minds of undergraduates by the richest City cults.
Oxford University asked us, “isn’t it preferable that [the City] recruits bright, critical thinkers & socially engaged graduates who are smart enough to hold their employers to account when possible?”. Oh blimey. This is a version of the most desperate excuse my college friends attempted: “I’ll reform them from within.” This magical thinking betrays a profound misconception about the nature & purpose of such employers.
They respond to profit, the regulatory environment, the demands of shareholders, not to the consciences of their staff. We all know how they treat whistleblowers. Why should “bright, critical thinkers & socially engaged graduates” be dispatched on this kamikaze mission? I believe these universities are failing in their duty of care.
The hero of this story is Gordon Chesterman, head of the careers service at Cambridge, & the only person we spoke to who appears to have given some thought to these questions. He told me his service tries to counter the influence of the richest employers.
It sends out regular emails telling students “if you don’t want to become a banker, you’re not a failure”, & runs an event called “But I don’t want to work in the City”. It imposes a fee on rich recruiters & uses the money to pay the train fares of nonprofits. He expressed anger about being forced by the government to provide data on graduate starting salaries.
“I think it’s a very blunt & inappropriate means [of comparison], that rings alarm bells in my mind.”
Elsewhere, at this vulnerable, mutable, pivotal moment, undergraduates must rely on their own wavering resolve to resist peer pressure, the herd instinct, the allure of money, flattery, prestige & security.
Students, rebel against these soul-suckers! Follow your dreams, however hard it may be, however uncertain success might seem.
A fully referenced version of this article can be found at Monbiot.com
Yes, students are one of the most idealistic people of any nation. They see the problem from an innocent point of view &, without any conflicts of interests or any politics, they try to find the best resolution to the problem. But with the same vein, they try to resolve every problem in a very straight-forward way, without thinking how the systems are structured or controlled or influenced. Merely protesting against the government on the streets won't help much if your demographics is not influential enough in the hallowed halls of the political powerhouses. For instance, we can see what did Egyptian youths & students achieve after protesting for weeks on end. Or students protesting against rising tuition fees around the world have not been able to convince post-secondary institutions to lower tuition fees.
So, at the same time, it is very true that students want to see the world develop in the noblest of forms; without any discriminations & prejudices. But at the same time, they also want to achieve success in their careers & life. They all want to climb high in the corporate world based on their merits & hard work. They all want to work for large, international, world-renowned companies.
The primary reason for this is how the labour market works. If these graduates get in a large, international, world-renowned company at the beginning of their careers, they can build their careers from that point, onwards & upwards. Other companies will look at their resumes & CVs & will be immediately impressed with their work experience, which they achieved at the large company. Those graduates may even build strong & influential networks by working in large multinational companies. For example, a graduate working in McKinsey or Bain or Boston Consulting Group or Deloitte or KPMG or General Electric or Phillips or Honda or Toyota or Google or Facebook etc will be able to transfer between different companies, in the same industry or even in different industries, very easily, due to how his/her work experiences will be looked upon by his future employers. A management consultant from McKinsey gets the doors flung open for him/her at other management consulting firms or even at non-consulting firms, like Google or General Electric.
Besides, the work experiences being favourably looked upon & networks being built, the salaries at these firms are good, too. But, I will not discuss the finance part of the argument, since, not every graduate chases the biggest pay packet. For many, salary comes second to experience.
Working for non-profits may elate a graduate for a short while, but, unless, they are willing to spend their whole life in the same company or stay within the non-profit sector, their experiences will most likely be considered not as important as a graduate's who has worked in a major consultancy firm. Is it unfair? Definitely. Should this be changed? Definitely. But who is willing to change it? There are not enough principals of the consultancy firms in this world who will look at a resume or CV of a person working at a non-profit agency & be immediately impressed.
Heck, even in personal lives, telling someone that one is working at such & such multinational consultancy firm or tech firm or other international company not only seem impressive but helps a lot in other ways. For instance, in Asian, South Asian, South American, & African societies, the measure of success of one's life is how big & well-known the employer of that person is. It doesn't even matter if that particular person is a janitor in that company. Parents & family members proudly boast that their family member is an employee of such a well-known international company. They don't care if that company is making weapons of mass destruction or destroying the environment or even killing the very soul of the society.
So, I agree with the argument that smart students should not be courted by large firms right before their graduations; when they may have not seen the world enough to make the right decision to choose the right career path for themselves. I also agree with the argument that students who want to work in such places where they can achieve their ideals, whatever they might be. But I disagree with the point that universities are failing in their duty of care by letting their graduates go for work for major "soulless" companies. Regardless of how much or how little universities market these companies to their intelligent students, those students will chase the large multinational companies because they know they will be able to travel the world, receive large pay packets, & most important of all, gain the work experience which will propel their careers in the stratosphere (assuming they don't screw up somewhere to derail their careers).
Everyone wants to go for the highest purposes of humankind but when push comes to shove, those noble ideas & meanings are pushed aside. It's not the fault of the universities or the companies or the young graduates, but the structure of the whole labour market is to blame. It rewards networks, not merits. It rewards experience gained at a multinational company, not the experience gained at a non-profit agency. It casts aside those who want to pursue highest purposes of humankind for the ones who are selfishly chasing money & careers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To seek enlightenment, intellectual or spiritual; to do good; to love & be loved; to create & to teach: these are the highest purposes of humankind. If there is meaning in life, it lies here.
Those who graduate from the leading universities have more opportunity than most to find such purpose. So why do so many end up in pointless & destructive jobs? Finance, management consultancy, advertising, public relations, lobbying: these & other useless occupations consume thousands of the brightest students. To take such jobs at graduation ... is to amputate life close to its base.
I watched it happen to my peers. People who had spent the preceding years laying out exultant visions of a better world, of the grand creative projects they planned, of adventure & discovery, were suddenly sucked into the mouths of corporations dangling money like angler fish.
At first they said they would do it for a year or two, “until I pay off my debts”. Soon afterwards they added: “and my mortgage”. Then it became, “I just want to make enough not to worry any more”. A few years later, “I’m doing it for my family”. Now, in middle age, they reply, “What, that? That was just a student fantasy.”
Why did they not escape, when they perceived that they were being dragged away from their dreams? I have come to see the obscene hours some new recruits must work – sometimes 15 or 16 a day – as a form of reorientation, of brainwashing. You are deprived of the time, sleep & energy you need to see past the place into which you have been plunged. You lose your bearings, your attachments to the world you inhabited before, & become immersed in the culture that surrounds you. Two years of this & many are lost for life.
Employment by the City has declined since the financial crash. Among the universities I surveyed with the excellent researcher John Sheil, the proportion of graduates taking jobs in finance & management consultancy ranges from 5% at Edinburgh to 13% at Oxford, 16% at Cambridge, 28% at the London School of Economics & 60% at the London Business School. But to judge by the number of applications & the rigour of the selection process, these businesses still harvest many of the smartest graduates.
Recruitment begins with lovebombing of the kind that cults use. They sponsor sports teams & debating societies, throw parties, offer meals & drinks, send handwritten letters, use student ambassadors to offer friendship & support. They persuade undergraduates that even if they don’t see themselves as consultants or bankers (few do), these jobs are stepping stones to the careers they really want. They make the initial application easy, & respond immediately & enthusiastically to signs of interest. They offer security & recognition when people are most uncertain & fearful about their future. And there’s the flash of the king’s shilling: the paid internships, the golden hellos, the promise of stupendous salaries within a couple of years. Entrapment is a refined science.
We have but one life. However much money we make, we cannot buy it back. As far as self-direction, autonomy & social utility are concerned, many of those who enter these industries & never re-emerge might as well have locked themselves in a cell at graduation. They lost it all with one false step, taken at a unique moment of freedom.
John Sheil & I sent questions to 8 of the universities with the highest average graduate salaries: Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, the LSE, the London Business School, Warwick, Sheffield & Edinburgh. We asked whether they seek to counter these lavish recruitment drives & defend students from the love blitz. With one remarkable exception, their responses ranged from feeble to dismal. Most offered no evidence of any prior interest in these questions. Where we expected deep deliberation to have taken place, we found instead an intellectual vacuum.
They cited their duty of impartiality, which, they believe, prevents them from seeking to influence students’ choices, & explained that there were plenty of other careers on offer. But they appear to have confused impartiality with passivity. Passivity in the face of unequal forces is anything but impartial. Impartiality demands an active attempt to create balance, to resist power, to tell the dark side of the celestial tale being pummelled into the minds of undergraduates by the richest City cults.
Oxford University asked us, “isn’t it preferable that [the City] recruits bright, critical thinkers & socially engaged graduates who are smart enough to hold their employers to account when possible?”. Oh blimey. This is a version of the most desperate excuse my college friends attempted: “I’ll reform them from within.” This magical thinking betrays a profound misconception about the nature & purpose of such employers.
They respond to profit, the regulatory environment, the demands of shareholders, not to the consciences of their staff. We all know how they treat whistleblowers. Why should “bright, critical thinkers & socially engaged graduates” be dispatched on this kamikaze mission? I believe these universities are failing in their duty of care.
The hero of this story is Gordon Chesterman, head of the careers service at Cambridge, & the only person we spoke to who appears to have given some thought to these questions. He told me his service tries to counter the influence of the richest employers.
It sends out regular emails telling students “if you don’t want to become a banker, you’re not a failure”, & runs an event called “But I don’t want to work in the City”. It imposes a fee on rich recruiters & uses the money to pay the train fares of nonprofits. He expressed anger about being forced by the government to provide data on graduate starting salaries.
“I think it’s a very blunt & inappropriate means [of comparison], that rings alarm bells in my mind.”
Elsewhere, at this vulnerable, mutable, pivotal moment, undergraduates must rely on their own wavering resolve to resist peer pressure, the herd instinct, the allure of money, flattery, prestige & security.
Students, rebel against these soul-suckers! Follow your dreams, however hard it may be, however uncertain success might seem.
A fully referenced version of this article can be found at Monbiot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)